Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. Asklemmy
  3. What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?

What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Asklemmy
asklemmy
556 Posts 154 Posters 2.0k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J [email protected]

    I think this advice is not very actionable as is, and needs more digesting into more specific strategies.

    Like, for instance: let's avoid making people feel rejected by the left for having privilege, and instead focus on guiding privileged people so that they can use their privilege to help the cause.

    atheartengineer@lemmy.worldA This user is from outside of this forum
    atheartengineer@lemmy.worldA This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote on last edited by
    #467

    I agree. I'm glad you made this post and are actually interacting in the comments to be constructive.

    There's a book I was introduced to last year called "good strategy bad strategy" that is worth a read, most of it's somewhat obvious and a little dated as far as examples, but the framing of how to think about strategy is pretty solid. Its an easy read, and like most non fiction books, you get most of the meat in the first half.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • cowbee@lemmy.mlC [email protected]

      So, Social Democrat. I wouldn't call that "left wing," in that it isn't a Socialist platform. It would be "left" in comparison to the status quo, but not enough to be "very very very left wing."

      P This user is from outside of this forum
      P This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote on last edited by
      #468

      It would be if you'd compare their program to that of the other left parties here

      cowbee@lemmy.mlC 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • P [email protected]

        It would be if you'd compare their program to that of the other left parties here

        cowbee@lemmy.mlC This user is from outside of this forum
        cowbee@lemmy.mlC This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #469

        As I said, left of the status quo, but not on the left.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J [email protected]

          Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

          H This user is from outside of this forum
          H This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote on last edited by
          #470

          I'm mostly an anarchist. But.

          I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I've been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understand a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is... Not good.

          The problem is, I don't know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It's easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I'm also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. ...And once you start going down that path, it's really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.

          I also don't know how to hand the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.

          cowbee@lemmy.mlC J C 3 Replies Last reply
          0
          • P [email protected]

            With a program that's more leftist than the actual left party, yes

            B This user is from outside of this forum
            B This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote on last edited by
            #471

            Oh? Tell me more about their program to overthrow the liberal state and wrestle control of the means of production away from the owning class.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • S [email protected]
              1. I'd argue the pandemic is what fixed the dmv, not running it like a business.

              2. It's often lost that in the pro-choice conversation, chosing to keep the pregnancy is also a valid choice.

              R This user is from outside of this forum
              R This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #472

              The improvements preceded COVID by a decade, COVID actually fucked it up for awhile because it relies on in person visits. It was definitely the "run your government like a business" Republican guys that fixed it.

              And yes on #2. Pro choice implies, well, choice. But being personally uncomfortable with abortion seems to annoy people even though I'm not telling them what to do. Like I have to have the right feelings about it.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • H [email protected]

                I'm mostly an anarchist. But.

                I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I've been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understand a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is... Not good.

                The problem is, I don't know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It's easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I'm also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. ...And once you start going down that path, it's really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.

                I also don't know how to hand the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.

                cowbee@lemmy.mlC This user is from outside of this forum
                cowbee@lemmy.mlC This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote on last edited by
                #473

                You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I'm not an Anarchist, though.

                H 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • ragdoll_x@sh.itjust.worksR [email protected]

                  I don't like racism against white people or sexism against men. Do I think they're less urgent or worrying than bigotry directed at other groups? Sure. There's less hate against men and whites compared to other demographic groups, and bigotry against them simply doesn't have the same social or political impact due to current systemic racism and sexism being directed at other groups. But bigotry is still bigotry, and I don't like bigotry against anyone.

                  B This user is from outside of this forum
                  B This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #474

                  As a white man, it means nothing to me when someone uses my race against me. The historical context of oppression doesn’t accompany the insult. However, there have been times in my life when minorities have excluded me or shunned me for my race, which sucks, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to internet war over it.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • J [email protected]

                    The reason that I stand by the moral hierarchy despite the possibility that it doesn't exist at all is that I can only reason about morality under the assumption that consciousness exists. I don't know how to cause pain to a non-conscious being.
                    To give an analogy: suppose you find out that next year there's a 50% chance that the earth will be obliterated by some cosmic event -- is this a reason to stop caring about global warming? No, because in the event that the earth is spared, we still need to solve global warming.

                    It is nebulous, but everything is nebulous at first until we learn more. I'm just trying to separate things that seem like pretty safe bets from things I'm less sure about. Steel beams not having consciousness seems like a safe bet. If it turns out that consciousness exists and works really really weirdly and steel beams do have consciousness, there's still no particularly good reason to believe that anything I could do to a steel beam matters to it, seeing as it lacks pain receptors.

                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #475

                    I see. I really appreciate you taking the time to tell me how you see things. It's been very interesting to me to read it.

                    I get anxious about asserting things I am not confident in. Do you ever wonder if holding onto something that you know you don't understand could end up being harmful?

                    I totally get not understanding how to make a steel beam happy. No reason to put effort into that.

                    My personal view is that matter inherently experiences since I experience and I can't find a magical hard line between me and rocks. Also I belive there is no smallest bit of matter, so there really isn't a way to compare the amount of interactions a system could have. Both are infinite. Therefore I have no real way to make a logical hierarchy. So I just interact how I can with respect for whatever I understand. I don't think elephant's are greater than ants.

                    Full respect for how you see things BTW. Our differences are basically faith based assumptions about the universe.

                    J 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • perogiboi@lemmy.caP [email protected]

                      You can be Jewish and even support the idea of a Jewish homeland while also being fervently appalled by the actions of the state of Israel (Netanyahu, West Bank settlements, unarmed Palestinians shot/killed, houses being bulldozed).

                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #476

                      Agreed. Antisemitism != antizionism.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • jerkface@lemmy.caJ [email protected]

                        Do you agree you have a debt to creatures you fuck into existence with your own genitalia?

                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                        [email protected]
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #477

                        Let's keep the language chill if you don't mind.

                        Yes, assuming such a thing as debt exists. In a different and better world where life is inherently positive, there might not be a debt.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • P [email protected]

                          I see. I really appreciate you taking the time to tell me how you see things. It's been very interesting to me to read it.

                          I get anxious about asserting things I am not confident in. Do you ever wonder if holding onto something that you know you don't understand could end up being harmful?

                          I totally get not understanding how to make a steel beam happy. No reason to put effort into that.

                          My personal view is that matter inherently experiences since I experience and I can't find a magical hard line between me and rocks. Also I belive there is no smallest bit of matter, so there really isn't a way to compare the amount of interactions a system could have. Both are infinite. Therefore I have no real way to make a logical hierarchy. So I just interact how I can with respect for whatever I understand. I don't think elephant's are greater than ants.

                          Full respect for how you see things BTW. Our differences are basically faith based assumptions about the universe.

                          J This user is from outside of this forum
                          J This user is from outside of this forum
                          [email protected]
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #478

                          I get not being able to find a magical hard line between A person and a rock. I do think there is actually a clear distinction: computation. Rocks are not computing anything; brains and arguably bacteria are computing things. I think consciousness is more like computation than matter -- this fits with my intuition that you could upload someone's mind onto a computer (one neuron at a time, maintaining continuity), and that simulation of you is still you.

                          P 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • H [email protected]

                            I'm mostly an anarchist. But.

                            I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I've been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understand a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is... Not good.

                            The problem is, I don't know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It's easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I'm also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. ...And once you start going down that path, it's really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.

                            I also don't know how to hand the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.

                            J This user is from outside of this forum
                            J This user is from outside of this forum
                            [email protected]
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #479

                            My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).

                            cowbee@lemmy.mlC 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • cowbee@lemmy.mlC [email protected]

                              You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I'm not an Anarchist, though.

                              H This user is from outside of this forum
                              H This user is from outside of this forum
                              [email protected]
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #480

                              I'll give it a read.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • J [email protected]

                                My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).

                                cowbee@lemmy.mlC This user is from outside of this forum
                                cowbee@lemmy.mlC This user is from outside of this forum
                                [email protected]
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #481

                                I don't think I've ever seen a self-identifying "totalitarian," plus the "tragedy of the commons" isn't really a thing.

                                J 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • cowbee@lemmy.mlC [email protected]

                                  I don't think I've ever seen a self-identifying "totalitarian," plus the "tragedy of the commons" isn't really a thing.

                                  J This user is from outside of this forum
                                  J This user is from outside of this forum
                                  [email protected]
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #482

                                  Can you explain what you mean about tragedy of the commons not being a thing? It seems inherently obvious. Like do you think it's not applicable politically, or even in thought experiments like cows in a meadow it still doesn't apply?

                                  cowbee@lemmy.mlC 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • J [email protected]

                                    Can you explain what you mean about tragedy of the commons not being a thing? It seems inherently obvious. Like do you think it's not applicable politically, or even in thought experiments like cows in a meadow it still doesn't apply?

                                    cowbee@lemmy.mlC This user is from outside of this forum
                                    cowbee@lemmy.mlC This user is from outside of this forum
                                    [email protected]
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #483

                                    More often than not it's a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn't a "tragedy of the commons" issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That's a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.

                                    "Totalitarianism" is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of "Totalitarianism" from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.

                                    J 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • cowbee@lemmy.mlC [email protected]

                                      More often than not it's a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn't a "tragedy of the commons" issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That's a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.

                                      "Totalitarianism" is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of "Totalitarianism" from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.

                                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                                      [email protected]
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #484

                                      Okay fine fine. I'm more of a self-described authoritarian really.

                                      That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.

                                      Well for instance, if there was only one singular mega-corporation with no competition, I don't think it would destroy the environment, at least not in a way that would reduce its future profits. My observation is that corporations tend to be more forward-thinking about their own profits than I tend to expect from the way they're structured. But you can get an advantage over other corporations in the short-term if throw environmentalism to the wayside.

                                      cowbee@lemmy.mlC 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • U [email protected]

                                        IMO the biggest problem is media. They report through a center-right lens and focus on sensationalism. So all people see of the left is the "check your privilege cis white boy" and "anarchists have burned down the entire city" BS lines instead of the vast aid efforts and daily work.

                                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        [email protected]
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #485

                                        For years I've been hearing "the media has a left bias" though. I guess that's left=democrat party, not left=leftist.

                                        U 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • V [email protected]

                                          Now I said let's murder them?

                                          Please don't use cheap discussing techniques, it makes any point you're trying to do look moot.

                                          Interestingly you still only talk about the perpetrators and not the victims.

                                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                                          [email protected]
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #486

                                          Now I said let’s murder them?

                                          You're advocating for death penalty.

                                          In countries that abolished it, if someone was executed it would be considered murder. So yes, you are advocating for murder.

                                          Interestingly you still only talk about the perpetrators and not the victims.

                                          What do victims have to do with this? I'm not proposing we kill them.

                                          Surviving victims should of course be offered treatment, both physical and mental, as well as fair compensation. It is irrelevant to the question of the death penalty.

                                          V 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups