What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
The fact that you have to ask means you'd judge people on skin color. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh because if the answer is yes, they're white, you'd attribute it to that but not bother looking any further. They are mostly white, but my friends wife isn't. I know my fair share of people who have had extremely bad interactions, too, and they are white. My brother was pulled out of his car at gun point for making an illegal turn. Do dwb happen sadly, yes, but those are not as frequent as you'd like to believe.
-
Your example is about as spicy as lukewarm water. The responses I got involved the words "bootlicker", "nazi", "fascist", and "chud", various expletives, called into question my mental health and respect for minorities, and listed several examples of why holding those views made me the scum of the earth.
Well yeah, but that doesn't invalidate the "tolerance is a social contract" mentality, it invalidates baseless accusations and extreme hostility. What I said is the actual intended result of the "don't tolerate intolerance" mentality. If that is fine with you, then you don't actually have any issue with the mentality itself, but with the implementation.
-
no i meant that in a metaphorical sense. no free trade means that there's no "getting ahead" (because you can't flood a foreign market with your cheap products), so people put in less effort.
Yes but which free trade are you talking about? Because if you close borders so trade only happens within one country, then there will still be competition within the country. That's why I ask which borders you mean exactly...
-
Trump and MAGA are regressive. They are hell-bent on taking this country back to the first half of the 20th century, in all the worst possible ways.
Most of them don't even know what they want. They're told what to think and simply can't process anything on their own. Argue with one and you'll be hard pressed to find an original thought, just regurgitations of what they've been told by fox news.
-
the anti-work movement has been a blight on communism
I feel like it has the wrong name. But it is a baby step for many toward anticapitalist ideals.
Work is good, and can be beneficial. Working a job you hate because if you don't you'd starve is awful and should be done away with.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
That the dense city movement, of building up, instead of out, is ultimately ceding a huge proportion of our lives (our dwelling sizes and layouts, their materiality and designs, how the public space between them looks and feels) to soulless corporations trying to extract every dollar.
When we build out, people tend to have more say in the design and build of their own home, often being able to fully build it however they want, and they certainly have far more freedom to change it after the fact, rather than having it be chosen by a condo developer. In addition, all the space between the homes is controlled by the municipalities, and you end up with pleasant streets and sidewalks, whereas condos just have the tiniest dingiest never ending hallways with no soul.
And condos are the instance where you actually at least kind of own your home. In the case of many cities that densify, you end up tearing down or converting relatively sense single family homes into multi apartment units where you again put a landlord in charge, sucking as many resources out of the residents as possible.
Yes, I understand all the grander environmental reasons about why we should densify, however, the act of doing so without changing our home ownership and development systems to be coop or publicly owned, is part of what is increasing the corporatization of housing.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
My only issue with that is taking from regular people to fund it. Tax solely corporations, many of them view increased profits at any cost as the only objective, which means they have more to spare. If you take it from the people who take all the risk by investing their own money, I don't see that as fair. If I work hard to make a living, invest what I can to improve my life and future that shouldn't be touched by any tax. Where I'm from, we have capital gains tax of something assured, like 55%+. I don't see how that is fair. If I go bust, I don't get a hand out or do over, but if I succeed, I have to fork over more than half...
-
I'm generally leaning towards progressive or left-wing ideas, but with a few exceptions.
- While I support the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, I believe that DEI initiatives are highly susceptible to exploitation because of the widespread and largely uncritical public support of the concept (or even just the abbreviation) with little regard to the implementation; and by tokenizing ethnicity, gender, and identity, it is at risk of doing what it was meant to prevent.
- I believe that law enforcement is a deeply flawed system to say the least, but ultimately necessary because the alternatives are lawlessness or ineffectual systems. This is of course colored by my European perspective where guns and driver's licenses aren't handed out like candy.
- The "tolerance is a social contract" mentality is hurting society. A person who experiences rejection and exclusion from progressive communities for voicing "intolerant" opinions will not be interested in reconciliation, and will inevitably fall in with a more radical group where they experience acceptance and belonging. Integration should be sought whenever reasonable.
The last point is especially important to me. I grew up in a fairly conservative environment, and it took me a lot of conscious effort to un-learn my prejudices and learn acceptance. But whenever I get downvoted and shouted down for voicing an opinion that aligns with conservatives, or simply isn't "leftist" enough, it makes me want to distance myself from "leftist" ideology and adds to my disillusionment.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There is an option in your settings so you don't see upvotes or downvotes.
Lemmy (AFAIK) doesn't even show you your total upvotes (karma... whatever it's called) by default either. None of these imaginary points matter.
(Lemmy is rad)
-
The first point is a fairly common opinion among communists, who understand "DEI" to be a liberal cooption of liberationist language and thought that tokenizes identities and reworks the concepts in favor of exploiters (and was doomed to be shed the moment it was less profitable for exploiters).
It may be beneficial to consider the second point with some nuance that is often neglected in order to agitate. Again with communists, you will find many that hate their country's cops but acknowledge the necessity in a post-revolutionary framework, either in their own visions for their own revolution or in defending the actions taken by their comrades that rapidly discover the need for some form of organized enforcement. One way to think about this is that the police are an arm of the state, and who that state serves via its structures and nature changes how they operate. In OECD countries, cops primarily serve capital. They protect profits based on shop owner complaints, shut down capital-inconvenient demonstrations, etc, and spend little time helping average people. In many capitalist countries, cops are underpaid and openly corrupt, so they do the same things while being more obvious bribes. In countries run by socialists, cops of course still do many cop things, but you will find them spending more of their time on other tasks, there are fewer per capita, and the job of being a cop in capitalist counties has been split into many different jobs that don't involve having a gun or otherwise carrying out the worst actions taken by cops. So, in short, it is entirely coherent to hate your local cops as an arm of capital that will beat you for protesting while not condemning the mere existence of cops in other countries while also understanding that we want to create a society free of them.
For the third point, it really depends on what you mean by accepting. Socialists need to educate people where they are, warts and all, but you also cannot be taillist and morph your work into accepting reactionary positions. That defeats the entire point of rejecting reactionary positions. Patience in explaining is valuable, tacit agreement with racism/xenophobia/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/etc is counterproductive. In addition, getting dunked on can and does create results. Despite growing up conservative and getting dunked on by those to your left, you now think of yourself as non-conservative. Are you sure none of those dunks ever led you to question your positions?
I can't address the entire reply since it's 3 in the morning, but I just want to point out something.
I'm not a communist. I'm not a socialist, or a Marxist-Leninist. I don't consider myself to be a "leftist" (which I see as an overly broad term), and I'm sure as hell not a centrist. If my views are inconsistent, it's because I don't follow any single doctrine.
-
It would be proportional, but instead of your representation being based on your address it's based on a choice you make.
Think of it this way; you're a computer programmer who works from home in Hayseed, Iowa. Everyone lese in your town is a farmer or working in farm related business. Your voice will never be heard by the Congressperson.
Under the new system, your address would be irrelevant. You'd be voting for a computer person who knows exactly what you need.
That's one example. You might want to be part of the 'teachers' or 'gun owners.'
The original idea comes from a novel, "Double Star" by Robert Heinlein. He doesn't provide an actual constitution, but I do think it's a nice idea to play around with.
But the reason it's based on address is because the person you vote for has power over that location. In this system, what would that person have power over?
-
Money can and should be abolished, but the best way to do so is to work towards a fully publicly owned and centrally planned economy and work of of labor vouchers, which are destroyed upon first use. Eliminate production for profit and replace it with production for use.
A few related thoughts.
- Money, capital, and profit are not the same things.
- Labor vouchers are a form of money.
- Every time you give fiat money back to the government which owns the “money printer,” that money has been in effect destroyed.
- I’m not of the opinion that money should be abolished, not even necessarily “eventually.” Maybe a time will come when it makes sense to, but I don’t have the foresight to speak meaningfully to that.
-
I'm generally leaning towards progressive or left-wing ideas, but with a few exceptions.
- While I support the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, I believe that DEI initiatives are highly susceptible to exploitation because of the widespread and largely uncritical public support of the concept (or even just the abbreviation) with little regard to the implementation; and by tokenizing ethnicity, gender, and identity, it is at risk of doing what it was meant to prevent.
- I believe that law enforcement is a deeply flawed system to say the least, but ultimately necessary because the alternatives are lawlessness or ineffectual systems. This is of course colored by my European perspective where guns and driver's licenses aren't handed out like candy.
- The "tolerance is a social contract" mentality is hurting society. A person who experiences rejection and exclusion from progressive communities for voicing "intolerant" opinions will not be interested in reconciliation, and will inevitably fall in with a more radical group where they experience acceptance and belonging. Integration should be sought whenever reasonable.
The last point is especially important to me. I grew up in a fairly conservative environment, and it took me a lot of conscious effort to un-learn my prejudices and learn acceptance. But whenever I get downvoted and shouted down for voicing an opinion that aligns with conservatives, or simply isn't "leftist" enough, it makes me want to distance myself from "leftist" ideology and adds to my disillusionment.
But whenever I get downvoted and shouted down for voicing an opinion that aligns with conservatives, or simply isn't "leftist" enough, it makes me want to distance myself from "leftist" ideology and adds to my disillusionment.
Why does disillusionment with the people involved in a movement influence your opinion on the ideals behind the movement?
Should the idea itself be bigger than the people that espouse it? If empathy and compassion are worthy goals, you don't just give up on them because other folk don't display them. If rejecting sexism is a worthy goal, you don't dial up the sexism because some folk think you don't go far enough in rejecting it.
-
The acab movement has caused more harm than it has salved. Furthering the ideas that there are no good cops means that nobody good will become a cop in the future, furthering the issue
Step 1: proving ACAB wrong
-
Voting is an important tool to help contain fascism in liberal democracies while building serious social movements. (Socialist).
Then we should take great care in how we run our electoral system.
::: spoiler Videos on Electoral Reform
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems we can try out.
-
Fundamentally, what Centrists want is stability, for people to get along, to find solutions that the majority on both sides would agree with. For the status-quoish state of stability.
A Centrist would be a Liberal (as its defined today, and not how it was defined in the 70's/80's) before they would be a Leftist. They perceive Capitalism as a stable foundation of the society.
To get a Centrist to believe in Leftist ideals you'd have to try and show that Leftism is also stable, AND describe how the transition/change to Leftism on its own would not be an unstabilizing thing. And also how Capitalism is a dead-end alley for the species ultimately, and how its ultimately hurtful to a society by incouraging fighting and competition between its members.
You'd also have to show that Rightism would understand that Leftism works. Centrists want both Leftists and Rightists to be 'happy' (loaded word I know, but you get the gist of what I'm trying to opine on).
No idea how to do all that, but IMO that's what would need to be done. You'd have to get the Right on board with Leftism, and you'd have to show Centrists that moving to Leftism won't be destabilizing to their current way of existing.
Best guess would be to appeal to common belief systems (fairness, freedoms, respect) that all three pillars would have in common.
An overall generic example would be to prove to a Rightist that a hand-out to someone is not being unfair, but its just helping someone out until they get on their feet, and can't be exploited, to try and "raise all boats" in society. And you'd have to tell some Leftists to stop trying to exploit the system, that they're now back on their feet, and that they need to put in as much effort as everybody else does.
For Leftists/Rightists stop yelling across the divide at each other, and start talking to each other, trying to understand what is important to them, and see if both sides can meet in the middle on those things that are important to both. Centrists will be happy that the fighting has stopped, and then you'd have to be extra careful not to destroy that non-fighting in trying to move the center to the left.
Oh, and do all of this while we have freedom of speech and people purposely trying to shape the narratives towards what they just want and to F with everybody else. A.k.a., "Free Will is a Pain in the Ass".
Thank you for coming to my 🧸-Talk.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
I think an awful lot of them actually have more leftish values, but they are convinced (and there is a huge self reinforcing bubble of that mentality, between media, politicians, and voters) that only the weakest, most watered down version of that can possibly succeed, politically.
-
The concept of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
There's no nuance from the left. The left polices itself like the radical right thinks they (the party of law and order) do.
Had a podcaster get dropped by their long time partner because there were lewd text messages sent.
I'm tired of the reactionary bullshit, currently Dawkins and Gaiman are being dropped, and I understand not wanting to associate/support Dawkins' current views, the guy wrote very persuasive works that shouldn't lose value because he lost his empathy.
I still read and enjoy enders game despite knowing what a tool Card turned into, how is it so difficult to separate art from the artist?
There’s no nuance from the left.
I would say there are many, many thick volumes of nuance, with reams of footnotes to evidence supporting it.
-
That the dense city movement, of building up, instead of out, is ultimately ceding a huge proportion of our lives (our dwelling sizes and layouts, their materiality and designs, how the public space between them looks and feels) to soulless corporations trying to extract every dollar.
When we build out, people tend to have more say in the design and build of their own home, often being able to fully build it however they want, and they certainly have far more freedom to change it after the fact, rather than having it be chosen by a condo developer. In addition, all the space between the homes is controlled by the municipalities, and you end up with pleasant streets and sidewalks, whereas condos just have the tiniest dingiest never ending hallways with no soul.
And condos are the instance where you actually at least kind of own your home. In the case of many cities that densify, you end up tearing down or converting relatively sense single family homes into multi apartment units where you again put a landlord in charge, sucking as many resources out of the residents as possible.
Yes, I understand all the grander environmental reasons about why we should densify, however, the act of doing so without changing our home ownership and development systems to be coop or publicly owned, is part of what is increasing the corporatization of housing.
Condos and townhouses also spawned HOAs which are yet another layer of an even pettier form of nosey neighbor government you get to live under.
Get a home outside city limits if you can, then it's just county, state, and federal... Though depending on the city, municipal government isn't as bad as HOA typically.
-
That the dense city movement, of building up, instead of out, is ultimately ceding a huge proportion of our lives (our dwelling sizes and layouts, their materiality and designs, how the public space between them looks and feels) to soulless corporations trying to extract every dollar.
When we build out, people tend to have more say in the design and build of their own home, often being able to fully build it however they want, and they certainly have far more freedom to change it after the fact, rather than having it be chosen by a condo developer. In addition, all the space between the homes is controlled by the municipalities, and you end up with pleasant streets and sidewalks, whereas condos just have the tiniest dingiest never ending hallways with no soul.
And condos are the instance where you actually at least kind of own your home. In the case of many cities that densify, you end up tearing down or converting relatively sense single family homes into multi apartment units where you again put a landlord in charge, sucking as many resources out of the residents as possible.
Yes, I understand all the grander environmental reasons about why we should densify, however, the act of doing so without changing our home ownership and development systems to be coop or publicly owned, is part of what is increasing the corporatization of housing.
grander environmental reasons
No. Humans are not separate from "nature".
-
That the dense city movement, of building up, instead of out, is ultimately ceding a huge proportion of our lives (our dwelling sizes and layouts, their materiality and designs, how the public space between them looks and feels) to soulless corporations trying to extract every dollar.
When we build out, people tend to have more say in the design and build of their own home, often being able to fully build it however they want, and they certainly have far more freedom to change it after the fact, rather than having it be chosen by a condo developer. In addition, all the space between the homes is controlled by the municipalities, and you end up with pleasant streets and sidewalks, whereas condos just have the tiniest dingiest never ending hallways with no soul.
And condos are the instance where you actually at least kind of own your home. In the case of many cities that densify, you end up tearing down or converting relatively sense single family homes into multi apartment units where you again put a landlord in charge, sucking as many resources out of the residents as possible.
Yes, I understand all the grander environmental reasons about why we should densify, however, the act of doing so without changing our home ownership and development systems to be coop or publicly owned, is part of what is increasing the corporatization of housing.
In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of "density" that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.
There is a pretty crazy amount of "density" in well bit, low rise structures - though actually I dont personally hate on towers as a concept.
Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
Abortion is not a moral hazard at all. Most people who might exist don't. The whole "everyone agrees abortion is awful..." shit is obnoxious. I legitimately do not care. I am far more concerned about the lives of actual children. Once we seriously tackle that issue, we can move downstream.
