What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
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.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
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.
-
There can be too much political correctness at times.
Related: I believe it's ok, given certain contexts, to speak broadly and crassly to people who expect that. It's ultimately ineffective and therefore bad to come off as an pretenscious arrogant know-it-all, correcting everyone's grammar and word choices and any ignorance they have. I see some students in the labor movement and wonder if they're capable of expressing their knowledge to typical joe worker, without injecting French, German or Russian, or losing their temper at some unintentionally offensive ignorance. We're speaking broadly to regular people, don't alienate them with your academic knowledge.
That doesn't mean never correct crappy things people say, you can and should, but pick your battles. A climate scientist once told me, being correct isn't enough.
-
The invention of money was a blight on our society. Abolishing it immediately is the first step to proper environmental recovery.
What the systems of getting people their food, supplies would look like, I don’t know, but having corporations hoarding wealth and polluting everything needs to stop.
Idk how we'd get rid of money, but it needs to be done. We're literally the only species on the planet with this concept and we're suffering for it.
-
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.
Perhaps it would be useful to build up from basics, asking them what issues actually affect their own life, and hopefully avoid all the hyperreality* culture wars of the media.
-
Idk how we'd get rid of money, but it needs to be done. We're literally the only species on the planet with this concept and we're suffering for it.
Yup. We’re producing the goods, we need the goods, why the hell are we doing this with shareholders and money?
Oh right, cause human time is limited and automation isn’t good enough.
-
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.
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.
It's what happens when housing is controlled by corporations, and once you start building housing as system that is bigger and more complex then one person or small family / support network can manage, then you inherently need to cede control and responsibility to a larger outside entity, which ends up being a corporation.
Even cities like Boston that have a relatively large amount of mid rise housing still havea massive housing costs that suck residents dry because it all ends up being landlord controlled.
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.
I'm no fan of suburbs, but at an inherent level (assuming no crazy HOA), you have far more control of any house that you own over any space in a building that you do. Your average 100 year old suburban home will have far more charm and look far more unique than your average 100 year old apartment unit.
-
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.
have to ask what?
-
I think we need to figure out how to make leftism more appealing to centrists, and particularly to the cis/straight/white/male demographic.
The white nationalist movement preys on alienated young white men (more than other groups). Creating avenues for including these people in our movement means less people we have to fight.
I'm not saying everyone is able to fit into our movement, or they may require so much education that we just don't have the resources to depropagandize them, but as a mass movement, more is generally better.
-
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...
Yes but i suspect that competition would be less fierce within the country, for two reasons:
-
the central government can stand in and regulate that "a factory may only produce a specific amount of goods". such regulation works better on the smaller level, because regulatory oversight is easier to achieve.
-
i guess that maybe the competition could naturally be less fierce. Consider: you would not want to pick a fight with the neighbour that lives directly next door; because you still have to get along well with him. It's easier to be in fierce competition with somebody who is on the other side of the world, because you will probably never see them again.
-
-
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 think it's important to understand that "money" as it exists within markets exists in a manner to be exchanged and accumulated. Labor vouchers are a type of "currency,” but as they can't really be accumulated in the same manner money for exchange can be, may make sense in the far future.
It's mostly a moot point because we lilely won't make it to the level of centralization necessary for such a system in our lifetimes though, and our successors can figure out potentially an even better system.
-
I see the sentiment that money should be abolished here all the time, but this is the first time I've actually seen a proposed replacement. It's an interesting idea.
If anyone wants do go deep into non-monetary economic systems, I haven't read/listened-to much of their work but economists and computer scientists like Cockshott have researched planned non-money economies.
A summary: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/paul_cockshott_cyber_communism.html
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
Tariffs on Chinese goods are a good thing. And I honestly see why the next logical step is tariffs on Mexico because Chinese companies are already building in Mexico so they can assemble there and ship across the border and circumvent tarrifs.
I think China manipulates markets and damages the global economy while making consumers feel like they don't need to value the products they buy because they are so cheap. And I don't think we should be letting China off the hook for the Uyghur genocide/gluttony of human rights violations.
Buy local. I wish it was easier to buy American manufactured stuff.
