What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
That progressive people should prioritize economic equality ahead of social issues.
The left has become so focused on illegal immigrants and identity politics that they have abandoned working class economic issues and rural white voters and it has cost them elections.
-
Can't care about your neigbors when you still have to worry about your own mouth to feed.
When you look at revolutions the tipping point was always the threat of going hungry and losing your home. That makes everyone desperate.
-
I think if we eliminated money, we would just invent it again and call it something else.
Well yah. The alternative is barter and farmers only need so many cell phones and software developers.
-
That intellectual property, both copyright or patents, doesn't serve its theoretical purpose and just acts as a legal shield for the monopolies of big corporations, at least in our capitalistic system, and it limits the spread of information
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music. In practice, all musicians need to be on Spotify through one of the few main publishers to make any decent money, and their music will be used for unintended purposes (intended for their contract at least) like AI training
In theory, patents should allow a small company with an idea to sell its progressive product to many big corporations. In practice, one big corporation will either buy the small company or copy the product and have the money to legally support its case against all evidence, lobbying to change laws too. Not to mention that big corporations are the ones that can do enough research to have relevant patents, it's much harder for universities and SMEs, not to mention big corporations can lobby to reduce public funding to R&D programs in universities and for SMEs.
And, last but not least important, access to content, think of politically relevant movies or book, depends on your income. If you are from a poorer country, chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music.
You mean like with copyright (IP) laws?
Patents and copyright originated to protect everyone. Charles Dickens complained that his books were rampantly copied. Without them any invention by the little guy would be immediately stolen and ramped up into production at levels the little guy can never match. Why would I work on anything if it can just be stolen with no legal protection? Universities and SMEs constantly issue patents, if they can't commercialize them themselves they can license them to someone who can.
chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
What? The internet is full of free info.
The real issues are things like:
-
Insanely long copyright periods. Sorry but your grandkids/Disney shouldn't profit from your work. 70+ years later.
-
Patent camping. Either do something with it or lose it.
-
Patent lawsuit factories. The patent office makes money off of fees and is too quick to hand out patents that are overly broad or trivial. You have business that just hoard patents with no intention to use them except to sue others.
-
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
We should try harder to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, sometimes taxation is necessary and sometimes it's beneficial even if we don't factor in revenue, people will sometimes make decisions that are so bad that we have a moral obligation to intervene in order to protect them from the most disastrous outcomes
-
Where in the definition of leftism is it said that leftism is unpopular?
it's manifested in our reality; only the liberal branch of leftism is permitted (particularly in the united states) while the other branches are openly denigrated by moderates and rightists alike and persecuted by our governments and militias.
-
I'm really appreciating how much restraint y'all guys are showing with the downvotes. Thanks everyone.
I'm a pro-downvote extremist and you've just made an enemy for life
-
Can using neutral pronouns be misgendering? I was always under the impression that they’re universally applicable regardless of the other person’s gender
Consider the scenario where you meet a man. You know his name is Bradley (either through mutual friends or whatever), but he introduces himself as Alex. You can call him Bradley, and it would be technically correct, but it would be slightly rude when he has explicitly given his preferred name as Alex.
-
I'm asking what's wrong with money that carries over to LVs. Why is money an issue?
I never claimed there was anything wrong with money? As far as I thought, I was arguing that it was a tool so useful it would be reinvented if a society did away with it.
-
I never claimed there was anything wrong with money? As far as I thought, I was arguing that it was a tool so useful it would be reinvented if a society did away with it.
Sure, but I think it's an entirely diffetent thing at that point even if it is used for distribution.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
Lessee... I suppose my hottest take is that no lives are sacred. I believe that human expansion into more 'wild' domains is a mistake and that national and state parks' availability should be limited (geographically - you may not venture into the Deep Parks). This probably borders on some vaguely eco-fascy beliefs, and I recognize human's inexorable curiousity and desire to explore, but you will never find me mourning a human victim of a wild animal.
-
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.
If they are so pro life I'd expect them to support universal healthcare but they very rarely do.
-
on the Left we
Where on "the Left"?
no one wants to be a white cis male contradicting the feelings, emotions or arguments of a POC or LGBTQ+ person
Maybe liberals don't. And I wouldn't consider them to be on the left.
Why would you want to police emotions or feelings of others?
Arguments on the other handz should be based on logic. And as long as you're respectful, one can disagree.
Your attempt at making all these different scenarios look the same, makes me question your position and honesty in this conversationThe Right doesn't really have this problem as the Far right opinions are generally understood to be reprehensible to most people
This is just purely false and inaccurate. There are plenty of people who agree with far right talking points
Ahahaha, "As long as you're respectful one can disagree." And a paragraph later "hey, this guy pointed out trump would be worse for Palestineans that means he is down with genoicde!!!!"
Could you prove my point much harder?
-
it's manifested in our reality; only the liberal branch of leftism is permitted (particularly in the united states) while the other branches are openly denigrated by moderates and rightists alike and persecuted by our governments and militias.
That's hardly definitional.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
I lean pretty hard left who is also pro death-penalty (IN VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES)
-
If the case has absolutely been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
All appeals have been exhausted.
-
Proof is absolutely undeniable.
-
Guilty party shows no remorse.
-
Crime is suffiently heinous (mass murder, child killing, serial killers, etc...)
-
A legitimate psychiatric board has deemed that there is little to no chance at rehabilitation nor does the guilty party show any inclination to want to rehabilitate.
if ALL those things are true, (plus some that I haven't even considered) then I would rather execute them than pay for their living expenses for the rest of their natural life, or worse see them released at the end of their sentance absolutely knowing that they'll do it again.
-
-
I lean pretty hard left who is also pro death-penalty (IN VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES)
-
If the case has absolutely been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
All appeals have been exhausted.
-
Proof is absolutely undeniable.
-
Guilty party shows no remorse.
-
Crime is suffiently heinous (mass murder, child killing, serial killers, etc...)
-
A legitimate psychiatric board has deemed that there is little to no chance at rehabilitation nor does the guilty party show any inclination to want to rehabilitate.
if ALL those things are true, (plus some that I haven't even considered) then I would rather execute them than pay for their living expenses for the rest of their natural life, or worse see them released at the end of their sentance absolutely knowing that they'll do it again.
No proof is absolutely undeniable. Especially not in an age when generative AI will soon be able to fabricate evidence easily.
-
-
I'm centrist so I probably believe in something that offends both sides.
I think the way to respond is "what do you believe that most centrists don't" -- though I feel like centrists are varied enough that you'll have trouble with this.
-
No proof is absolutely undeniable. Especially not in an age when generative AI will soon be able to fabricate evidence easily.
That is absolutely true about AI. It's something that I'll have to think about. Thanks!
-
No proof is absolutely undeniable. Especially not in an age when generative AI will soon be able to fabricate evidence easily.
You are absolutely correct regarding AI. I hadn't considered that. It gives me something to think about. Thanks!
-
I believe in the possibility of bigfoot being real.
Ah, you must be a anarcho-monarchist anti-kakistocrat, are famed for their disbelief of bigfoot.
