6 ms·

> The only people the left doesn't want freedom for is those who are actively trying to take it away. My experience is that most progressive causes want to red

> The only people the left doesn't want freedom for is those who are actively trying to take it away. My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. Policies such as government supported housing, daycare, support this. These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard. Imo this is the folly of the left.

ryandv 1y ago
> My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. > These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. Moreover despite all the constant pearl clutching about "systemic imbalances in resources between whites and People of Color" from the progressive left, you will find that most of these policies actually transfer wealth from the middle and upper-middle class ethnic minority demographics to rich white nepotists in the government. If progressives were actually serious about correcting racial wealth disparities, we would implement a taxation scheme that taxes whites more heavily, and ethnic minorities less so, based on some metric of the overall injustices visited upon them. Instead, the instant an ethnic minority gets a leg up on the system all the crabs in the progressive bucket demand that he get pulled back down. The words and slogans about "equity" are just hymnal responses that the white progressive uses to absolve themselves of all responsibility and accountability, since after accepting the Code of Conduct and the DEI statement they've already been "born again" out of the original sins of implicit bias and racism.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  Ehh at the left we don't really think in terms of 'original sin'. Most of us are not religious, these things are simply meaningless to us. And DEI is something that is not about quotas at all. It's about having race and ethniticy not influencing the hiring process at all. Being "colorblind", which is ironically enough what Trump says how he wants things to be (but in reality he is very racist).
  - ryandv 1y ago
    > Ehh at the left we don't really think in terms of 'original sin'. Most of us are not religious, these things are simply meaningless to us. You are under the core progressive delusion that choosing not to identify or label yourself as a thing, means you are in fact not that thing. In truth, the labeling of a thing is completely orthogonal to its ontological status. Concrete example: most of the left believes in a "gender identity," which is an immaterial, non-objective, unobservable, unscientific, metaphysical phenomenon that is somehow "more you" than the material reality of the physical body. If you strip away the gender theory jargon, you end up with a concept equivalent to "the soul", which is in contemporary discourse usually regarded as a religious, not a scientific, concept. You may have called it something else - a gender identity - but despite the difference in nomenclature you are still describing and referring to the same thing the religious devotees referred to when they talked about "the soul." > It's about having race and ethniticy not influencing the hiring process at all. Being "colorblind" Again more progressive fanfiction and creative wordsmithing with no relationship to reality. The Supreme Court struck down DEI policies (rebranded affirmative action) on the basis that they were, quoting Justice Clarence Thomas, "rudderless, race-based preferences" [0] [1]. This is literally the opposite of being "colorblind." I stand very firm in my position that everything progressives say is a direct negation of reality. [0] https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decision https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action... [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-courts-conservative-majority-strikes-down-race-based-affirmative-action-in-university-admissions https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-courts-conserv...
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      > Concrete example: most of the left believes in a "gender identity," which is an immaterial, non-objective, unobservable, unscientific, metaphysical phenomenon that is somehow "more you" than the material reality of the physical body. It's about feeling. Someone with a different gender feels uncomfortable in their body (and that's putting it mildly). If you declare that unscientific you can throw out the entire psychological/psychiatric sciences. > You may have called it something else - a gender identity - but despite the difference in nomenclature you are still describing and referring to the same thing the religious devotees referred to when they talked about "the soul." Of course, religion was invented to help people make sense of the world (and of course as a means of control). Gender identity has always existed. It makes sense that religion invented some terms to explain it away. Because as a means of control and no IVF options etc this was contrary to religions' survival. After all, religion gets passed on through upbringing. If you approach a person as an adult with this kind of stuff most of them will reject it, but as kids they are impressionable and can be indoctrinated. If people have no kids, there's no new religious minions being produced and thus the religion's survival probability is a bit affected. This is why conservative people are so obsessed about birthrates. > Again more progressive fanfiction and creative wordsmithing with no relationship to reality. The Supreme Court struck down DEI policies (rebranded affirmative action) on the basis that they were, quoting Justice Clarence Thomas, "rudderless, race-based preferences" [0] [1]. This is literally the opposite of being "colorblind." But DEI is not affirmative action. I work in this field myself for a big multinational. We don't do that. There are no quotas. We do measure our effectiveness with it (If you're in a country with 90% latino people and hire 80% caucasians obviously something is wrong) but we don't have hiring quotas. Instead what we do is management/HR training to recognise and avoid bias. And materials to improve understanding of minority needs, like LGBTIQ+ (which is the area I do some work in). A lot of managers wouldn't even have known what nonbinary is for example, they would just see someone appear for an interview and dismiss them as 'weird'. They also wouldn't understand the specific issues they could encounter in the workplace. This is what we're working against. Affirmative action is something that companies do that don't actually care about DEI but just want their "numbers" to look good. Quotas is the easiest way to solve "the numbers" but not actually do the hard work of removing bias. Meaning minority people will get hired but for the wrong reasons, and they will still have issues in the workplace resulting from lack of understanding. This is not the way to approach it, only when you're a lazy company.
wkat4242 1y ago
> My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. Policies such as government supported housing, daycare, support this. Oh absolutely. This is the way to make a more fair and balanced society. If the US doesn't want that, fine but it is of course also the reason for the no-go areas/ghettos, the amount of violent crime etc. Because people who are in the lowest class and have no upward mobility will tend to spiral away in crime, because that does pay. > These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard. We don't believe in unrestricted free-market capitalism anyway.
- hellojesus 1y ago
  > Oh absolutely. This is the way to make a more fair and balanced society. I understand its purpose, but it does restrict freedom. Personally I am much more a fan of charity because its voluntary nature preserves freedom, but I accept the duality of freedom is the potential for lousy initial conditions in life. > We don't believe in unrestricted free-market capitalism anyway. I think we should strive to push society to freer markets. Neither leading party seems to have interest, however.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    As a socialist I don't think all markets should be free. Only the ones that aren't necessary for living. Energy, healthcare, public transport, even telecoms should be in government hands (as they all were in Holland in the 80s)
permo-w 1y ago
>These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard. relate every part of this sentence to the previous sentence

ryandv 1y ago

> My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. > These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. Moreover despite all the constant pearl clutching about "systemic imbalances in resources between whites and People of Color" from the progressive left, you will find that most of these policies actually transfer wealth from the middle and upper-middle class ethnic minority demographics to rich white nepotists in the government. If progressives were actually serious about correcting racial wealth disparities, we would implement a taxation scheme that taxes whites more heavily, and ethnic minorities less so, based on some metric of the overall injustices visited upon them. Instead, the instant an ethnic minority gets a leg up on the system all the crabs in the progressive bucket demand that he get pulled back down. The words and slogans about "equity" are just hymnal responses that the white progressive uses to absolve themselves of all responsibility and accountability, since after accepting the Code of Conduct and the DEI statement they've already been "born again" out of the original sins of implicit bias and racism.

wkat4242 1y ago
Ehh at the left we don't really think in terms of 'original sin'. Most of us are not religious, these things are simply meaningless to us. And DEI is something that is not about quotas at all. It's about having race and ethniticy not influencing the hiring process at all. Being "colorblind", which is ironically enough what Trump says how he wants things to be (but in reality he is very racist).
- ryandv 1y ago
  > Ehh at the left we don't really think in terms of 'original sin'. Most of us are not religious, these things are simply meaningless to us. You are under the core progressive delusion that choosing not to identify or label yourself as a thing, means you are in fact not that thing. In truth, the labeling of a thing is completely orthogonal to its ontological status. Concrete example: most of the left believes in a "gender identity," which is an immaterial, non-objective, unobservable, unscientific, metaphysical phenomenon that is somehow "more you" than the material reality of the physical body. If you strip away the gender theory jargon, you end up with a concept equivalent to "the soul", which is in contemporary discourse usually regarded as a religious, not a scientific, concept. You may have called it something else - a gender identity - but despite the difference in nomenclature you are still describing and referring to the same thing the religious devotees referred to when they talked about "the soul." > It's about having race and ethniticy not influencing the hiring process at all. Being "colorblind" Again more progressive fanfiction and creative wordsmithing with no relationship to reality. The Supreme Court struck down DEI policies (rebranded affirmative action) on the basis that they were, quoting Justice Clarence Thomas, "rudderless, race-based preferences" [0] [1]. This is literally the opposite of being "colorblind." I stand very firm in my position that everything progressives say is a direct negation of reality. [0] https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decision https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action... [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-courts-conservative-majority-strikes-down-race-based-affirmative-action-in-university-admissions https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-courts-conserv...
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    > Concrete example: most of the left believes in a "gender identity," which is an immaterial, non-objective, unobservable, unscientific, metaphysical phenomenon that is somehow "more you" than the material reality of the physical body. It's about feeling. Someone with a different gender feels uncomfortable in their body (and that's putting it mildly). If you declare that unscientific you can throw out the entire psychological/psychiatric sciences. > You may have called it something else - a gender identity - but despite the difference in nomenclature you are still describing and referring to the same thing the religious devotees referred to when they talked about "the soul." Of course, religion was invented to help people make sense of the world (and of course as a means of control). Gender identity has always existed. It makes sense that religion invented some terms to explain it away. Because as a means of control and no IVF options etc this was contrary to religions' survival. After all, religion gets passed on through upbringing. If you approach a person as an adult with this kind of stuff most of them will reject it, but as kids they are impressionable and can be indoctrinated. If people have no kids, there's no new religious minions being produced and thus the religion's survival probability is a bit affected. This is why conservative people are so obsessed about birthrates. > Again more progressive fanfiction and creative wordsmithing with no relationship to reality. The Supreme Court struck down DEI policies (rebranded affirmative action) on the basis that they were, quoting Justice Clarence Thomas, "rudderless, race-based preferences" [0] [1]. This is literally the opposite of being "colorblind." But DEI is not affirmative action. I work in this field myself for a big multinational. We don't do that. There are no quotas. We do measure our effectiveness with it (If you're in a country with 90% latino people and hire 80% caucasians obviously something is wrong) but we don't have hiring quotas. Instead what we do is management/HR training to recognise and avoid bias. And materials to improve understanding of minority needs, like LGBTIQ+ (which is the area I do some work in). A lot of managers wouldn't even have known what nonbinary is for example, they would just see someone appear for an interview and dismiss them as 'weird'. They also wouldn't understand the specific issues they could encounter in the workplace. This is what we're working against. Affirmative action is something that companies do that don't actually care about DEI but just want their "numbers" to look good. Quotas is the easiest way to solve "the numbers" but not actually do the hard work of removing bias. Meaning minority people will get hired but for the wrong reasons, and they will still have issues in the workplace resulting from lack of understanding. This is not the way to approach it, only when you're a lazy company.

wkat4242 1y ago

> My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. Policies such as government supported housing, daycare, support this. Oh absolutely. This is the way to make a more fair and balanced society. If the US doesn't want that, fine but it is of course also the reason for the no-go areas/ghettos, the amount of violent crime etc. Because people who are in the lowest class and have no upward mobility will tend to spiral away in crime, because that does pay. > These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard. We don't believe in unrestricted free-market capitalism anyway.

hellojesus 1y ago
> Oh absolutely. This is the way to make a more fair and balanced society. I understand its purpose, but it does restrict freedom. Personally I am much more a fan of charity because its voluntary nature preserves freedom, but I accept the duality of freedom is the potential for lousy initial conditions in life. > We don't believe in unrestricted free-market capitalism anyway. I think we should strive to push society to freer markets. Neither leading party seems to have interest, however.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  As a socialist I don't think all markets should be free. Only the ones that aren't necessary for living. Energy, healthcare, public transport, even telecoms should be in government hands (as they all were in Holland in the 80s)

permo-w 1y ago

>These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard. relate every part of this sentence to the previous sentence