6 ms·

Let’s talk about it. What are “left wing issues” and what are “right wing issues”? We can probably agree on what an issue is. But I’m not sure we have any idea

by amradio1989 1y ago

Let’s talk about it. What are “left wing issues” and what are “right wing issues”? We can probably agree on what an issue is. But I’m not sure we have any idea what right wing or left wing are. How far right is right wing? And right of what, exactly? What about the left? Where is the center point? Here’s a fun one. To whom belongs the issue of racism? Is that a right wing issue or a left wing one? It’s neither of course. It’s a human issue. And you have victims of racism across the entire political spectrum who care deeply about it. Yet discourse would have you assume it’s a “left wing” issue, when it’s anything but.

dijit 1y ago
Right wing issue: National Identity, community building, trust and safety (high trust society), belief that governmental power corrupts (though obviously they weigh this against the trust mentioned earlier and put a lot of merit in armed forces and police). Left wing issues: Equity and fairness, individual identity but mandatory collectivism and the belief that government is likely to be more fair than a charity or company (I am on this end of things, but I can sympathise with the other). Its sort of ignorant to throw up your hands here, at least in the US the stances are pretty well defined. The abortion debate is a good example where one side believes fully that its murder, and the other side believes fully that forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery (I am personally on this end of the spectrum so forgive any bias in my wording). All issues are human issues, thats like talking about COVID and then bringing up Aids because they are both “human conditions”: these points are disperse, and everyone thinks they know whats best for society.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Well spoken. I consider myself on the other end of things, but I experience, that for people with an active political stance, it's pretty obvious who is who (unless somebody is in propaganda mode). Unless you are on an extreme side, you can always sympathize with the other side for most issues, which is why we are able to find compromises and vote on laws at all. As for the example you mention (abortion), this is one where I can't sympathize with your side. To me living is a human right that is never moral to be violated, especially for personal selfish interests. Yes, I do consider being too poor for a child or not wanting a child to be selfish. This: > forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery to me seams like a strawman. That's why we have baby flaps and foster homes for centuries. Even at the end of the roman empire people have brought babies to monasteries, because they didn't want to care for them. Yes they are more miserable then having good parents, but no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill.
  - giardini 1y ago
    1718627440 says " no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill[i.e., an abortion]." So abortion is murder for you, and the ban against murder is usually based on the Bible's Old Testament for people in the USA (stemming from the 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill."). Assuming so, yet another specific religious belief has been dragged into our politics despite the fact that we have a clause in our constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...", the First Amendment, allowing freedom of religion. Seems we have a basic problem here. I disagree with you for a number of reasons: - I don't believe in any spiritual entities (e.g., a soul, God, Jesus, Satan, St. Peter, angels, djinn, souls, sin, etc.) - for morality I have the universe and my fellow men as the elements, no more, so saints, souls, angels, devils, gods and heavens fall away from reality for me, - And so my backstop is the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do to you."). Man has progressed. Much of what you claim would be fine except we now have - birth control, - largely safe (for the mother) abortion, and - I am unwilling to tell a woman that anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body. IOW science has rendered the traditional morality no longer applicable TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. That does NOT mean that science has rendered traditional morality irrelevant b/c evolution still applies and will dominate future generations: - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, - it remains safest to avoid unnecessary sex (b/c of disease) and - it is best to be careful of the partner you choose b/c (s)he will contribute to the offspring's genes and (s)he will likely tend your offspring. In summary, we got a problem: you have a religious belief (abortion is murder, perhaps based on another religious idea - that of a soul) that I do not accept. For me it's like the song says: Queen - Fun It Lyrics "Hey everybody everybody gonna have a good time tonight Just shakin' the soles of your feet Everybody gonna have a good time tonight time tonight Time tonight That's the only soul you'll ever meet."
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. > we now have > - birth control, > - largely safe (for the mother) abortion What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? > - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic. > anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body. Yes I agree. Everyone can make decisions about anything that is his/her as long as it doesn't affect others. Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies? Does the body that stops living by the medication have the DNA of the mother? Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you? PS: > spiritual entities: Jesus, Peter Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.
- thrance 1y ago
  > belief that governmental power corrupts You can't be serious man. Not a single right winger bat an eye when Trump received a $400M plane from Saudi Arabia. They all hate muslims but they hate accountability even more. > mandatory collectivism What's that supposed to mean? I don't know of a single left wing politician in the US that advocates for collectivizing anything.
thrance 1y ago
Right wing issues: deport brown people, remove rights from minorities, cut essential government programs, undo social progress, give tax breaks to the rich, spend government money on military contracts. Left wing issues: socialized healthcare, tax the wealthy, unionize workers, equity before the law, social progress.

dijit 1y ago

Right wing issue: National Identity, community building, trust and safety (high trust society), belief that governmental power corrupts (though obviously they weigh this against the trust mentioned earlier and put a lot of merit in armed forces and police). Left wing issues: Equity and fairness, individual identity but mandatory collectivism and the belief that government is likely to be more fair than a charity or company (I am on this end of things, but I can sympathise with the other). Its sort of ignorant to throw up your hands here, at least in the US the stances are pretty well defined. The abortion debate is a good example where one side believes fully that its murder, and the other side believes fully that forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery (I am personally on this end of the spectrum so forgive any bias in my wording). All issues are human issues, thats like talking about COVID and then bringing up Aids because they are both “human conditions”: these points are disperse, and everyone thinks they know whats best for society.

1718627440 1y ago
Well spoken. I consider myself on the other end of things, but I experience, that for people with an active political stance, it's pretty obvious who is who (unless somebody is in propaganda mode). Unless you are on an extreme side, you can always sympathize with the other side for most issues, which is why we are able to find compromises and vote on laws at all. As for the example you mention (abortion), this is one where I can't sympathize with your side. To me living is a human right that is never moral to be violated, especially for personal selfish interests. Yes, I do consider being too poor for a child or not wanting a child to be selfish. This: > forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery to me seams like a strawman. That's why we have baby flaps and foster homes for centuries. Even at the end of the roman empire people have brought babies to monasteries, because they didn't want to care for them. Yes they are more miserable then having good parents, but no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill.
- giardini 1y ago
  1718627440 says " no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill[i.e., an abortion]." So abortion is murder for you, and the ban against murder is usually based on the Bible's Old Testament for people in the USA (stemming from the 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill."). Assuming so, yet another specific religious belief has been dragged into our politics despite the fact that we have a clause in our constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...", the First Amendment, allowing freedom of religion. Seems we have a basic problem here. I disagree with you for a number of reasons: - I don't believe in any spiritual entities (e.g., a soul, God, Jesus, Satan, St. Peter, angels, djinn, souls, sin, etc.) - for morality I have the universe and my fellow men as the elements, no more, so saints, souls, angels, devils, gods and heavens fall away from reality for me, - And so my backstop is the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do to you."). Man has progressed. Much of what you claim would be fine except we now have - birth control, - largely safe (for the mother) abortion, and - I am unwilling to tell a woman that anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body. IOW science has rendered the traditional morality no longer applicable TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. That does NOT mean that science has rendered traditional morality irrelevant b/c evolution still applies and will dominate future generations: - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, - it remains safest to avoid unnecessary sex (b/c of disease) and - it is best to be careful of the partner you choose b/c (s)he will contribute to the offspring's genes and (s)he will likely tend your offspring. In summary, we got a problem: you have a religious belief (abortion is murder, perhaps based on another religious idea - that of a soul) that I do not accept. For me it's like the song says: Queen - Fun It Lyrics "Hey everybody everybody gonna have a good time tonight Just shakin' the soles of your feet Everybody gonna have a good time tonight time tonight Time tonight That's the only soul you'll ever meet."
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. > we now have > - birth control, > - largely safe (for the mother) abortion What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? > - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic. > anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body. Yes I agree. Everyone can make decisions about anything that is his/her as long as it doesn't affect others. Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies? Does the body that stops living by the medication have the DNA of the mother? Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you? PS: > spiritual entities: Jesus, Peter Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.
thrance 1y ago
> belief that governmental power corrupts You can't be serious man. Not a single right winger bat an eye when Trump received a $400M plane from Saudi Arabia. They all hate muslims but they hate accountability even more. > mandatory collectivism What's that supposed to mean? I don't know of a single left wing politician in the US that advocates for collectivizing anything.

thrance 1y ago

Right wing issues: deport brown people, remove rights from minorities, cut essential government programs, undo social progress, give tax breaks to the rich, spend government money on military contracts. Left wing issues: socialized healthcare, tax the wealthy, unionize workers, equity before the law, social progress.