What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
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.
It's more accurate to say that I'm growing disillusioned with the movement as a whole and the people who claim allegiance with it, not its ideals. I support the ideals that I find right and just, and given limited options (votes and such), will support the people who promote those ideals.
-
That Trump is neither conservative (in any way) nor cares at all about any traditional Republican values
I agree and disagree.
I believe he doesn't actually care for anything but himself. He is racist and classist and what else. But I don't think it dictates his politics as much as you might would assume. He wants power and through his own racism, he released that "vague" racism works, but mostly the creation of the "others".
But I think his activities are deeply based in traditional republican values. That is why project 2025 exists. Republican think Tanks created it. You could argue that those aren't republican values but e.g. they pushed for a horrible school system for decades. Trump doesn't actually care about it, but he follows the plan because it aligns with government deregulation which he likes.
-
The settler mindset has long outlived the immediate settler colonists that were genociding the natives or otherwise assisting it by stealing land (with extra steps). Nobody who uses the term has that meaning. We are referring to the settler colonial psychology that persists, and particularly its US version that is merged with white supremacy and national chauvinism.
You can also recognize it in other Euro settler colonists like the Afrikaners and "Israelis". They tell the same stories about deserving the land, of doing a better job with it, of blaming the colonized for fighting back or "bringing up the past", they seed conversations with racial supremacist implications and sometimes just overt racism. Are cowboys the good guys? Is it cool to be a cowboy? If you picture a cowboy in your head, are they a white guy? Most cowboys were brown and a substantial minority were black. American settler psychology has in some ways moved beyond those examples, however, as the "settlement" is nearly complete so they can entertain performative actions like cynical land acknowledgements while never supporting Land Back or even just basic material improvements for natice people. They can temporarily "feel bad", but not so bad as to need to actually do anything, because the national genocide doesn't warrant doing even one tangible thing per year.
I have not gotten too deep into the material basis of the settler mindset, but it is also prevalent and the most important. The fundamental fact of free or almost free land (stolen land) led to an economic base premised on it that has been slowly closing up. It acted as a release valve for social pressures that advanced in Europe, it could create profits from essentially nothing and be a carrot dangled in front of the face of generations that told their kids and grandkids that you could just work hard and go be a farmer. Two depressions resulted from the loss of the material basis for this but not the culture, as The New Deal and associated red scare then coincided with the US firmly taking over as prime imperialist, propping up the welfare of white people of settler culture via neocolonial exploitation. Pineapples on tables and virtual guarantees on jobs and cheap houses for a few generations. Not so much for black or brown people.
These are things in living memory. They color all of our experiences, ambitions, cultural references, and attitudes towards one another - and what we think we owe each other (usually nothing per this mindset).
Re: knee jerk reactions, yes of course, it is supposed to be dismissive when you call someone a settler to their face. It is usually an irrefutable fact and they don't know how to deal with it because they don't understand it. Is it always wrong to be dismissive? I think it can carry important emotional content so as to agitate others. Maybe the audience isn't the centrist settler, or is otherwise someone they think it would be a waste of time to try and convert directly. Most of the time they are going to be right about that. A "centrist" sharing their opinion already lacks humility and that's rarely the place a person can improve from.
The overwhelming majority of leftists I know used to be centrists at some point in their lives. Also, I'm really astonished that you openly admit that you use the word "settler" specifically to be antagonizing. I kind of thought that was the bailey, not the motte.
-
I think you should read J. Sakai’s Settlers. It explains this (in a US context) quite well and I think that it refutes the concept of just making leftism “more appealing” isn’t a valid concept.
I can read the book, but... I just don't understand how leftism can be successful without followers.
-
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.
I would love to see IP law burned to the ground. A more realistic goal in the meanwhile might be to get compulsory licensing in more areas than just radio.
-
Sometimes people are that rabid they need to be removed from existence
One person is confirmed to have survived rabies apparently.
-
One person is confirmed to have survived rabies apparently.
Rabies victims and rabid as in dangerous are different things mein freund
-
Well that's what I mean by doing more harm than good. People notice, and then say "I hate whatever those people stand for".
(Those kinds of) protests aren't for convincing the average person. The point of a protest is to tell the people in power "there are a lot of us, and you can't afford to ignore us."
-
I am unsure about when it stops being moral to terminate a foetus/baby. I think it's somewhere between 6 and 14 months, but that's just my gut feeling. Some people are astonished that I would even consider that it could be after birth, but it's not like any sudden development occurs at the moment of birth.
It's not about the development of the fetus, it's about the woman's autonomy. So long as it's still inside her it doesn't have any right to live that takes priority over her right to choose.
-
I am unsure about when it stops being moral to terminate a foetus/baby. I think it's somewhere between 6 and 14 months, but that's just my gut feeling. Some people are astonished that I would even consider that it could be after birth, but it's not like any sudden development occurs at the moment of birth.
It is always moral if the woman doesn't want the baby. Sometimes you don't even find out you're pregnant until it's 7 weeks or so
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
Christianity should be criminalized.
-
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?
If you're paying a rapist for their work and encouraging people to pay the rapist that's helping the rapist. Completely fine by me if you pirate the books and don't tell other people to buy them.
-
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.
I believe it does function in as it does in theory, but the justification to the public is what you list as "in theory." Regulations like IP laws are only allowed to pass because they support the profits of those who hold the IP.
-
Its going to take hundreds or thousands of years to achieve A Better World and not three back-to-back election cycles that are shutouts for the right, nor one or two color revolutions. All of time since the French Revolution and the Enlightenement has been the blink of an eye in historical terms.
I sort of agree. As Lenin says, "there are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen." I believe Humanity taking supremacy over Capital, rather than the inverse, will be an astonishingly rapid process, but that once that has happened and progress can well and truly begin, said progress will come slowly and require tremendous effort to get there.
-
Necessities should be free for all.
Is that unpopular among Anarchists?
-
So what is the alternative to "downvoting" someone's opinion? You can't support it, obviously, that would be stupid. I just see no other way than "downvoting", saying "well, I see where you're coming from, but your opinion is wrong and doesn't achieve what you want".
Hexbear doesn't have downvotes, you are encouraged to reply and actually address the bad comments.
-
I'd give the revolution in the US zero % chance of success, which one is better?
I'd give revolution a greater chance of success than UBI coming without equal or greater social functions taken away to compensate. Revolution is practically an inevitability, UBI is closer to a dream.
-
Christianity should be criminalized.
Only Christianity, or all Abrahamic religions, or all spirituality?
Can i still like Jesus? Can i still study Christ as a historical figure?
What about ancient religious art? Destroy it?
What's the punishment if i get caught thinking about The Lord, or God forbid, praying!?
Just for context i am not religious or spiritual, but it seems like a thought crime.
-
Rabies victims and rabid as in dangerous are different things mein freund
I took it as a metaphor for the amazing ability humans have to change
-
I think on the Left we have a "virtuous" cycle/feedback loop that results in increasingly outlandish positions.
Essentially, for most people there's a serotonin feedback when people upvote, applaud, reteeet etc. People, responding to incentives like anyone else shift their online discourse to match.
Similarly, even beyond the positive feedback, on thr Left no one wants to be a white cis male contradicting the feelings, emotions or arguments of a POC or LGBTQ+ person.
The Right doesn't really have this problem as the Far right opinions are generally understood to be reprehensible to most people so those movements have evolved to work on dog whistles etc.
It's a structural issue but one that puts us out of touch with the mainstream (consider defund the police, transgender athletes or immigration until we were getting murdered in the polls and it was too late to do anything.)
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
