Political discourse
-
This post did not contain any content.
it is very clear you don't live in a small southern county
-
The idea that we don't have the resources to help everyone is patently false. We could provide for everyone on Earth with about 40% of total production. The problem is not the very poor, crammed into tiny apartments and eating bad food. The problem is the ultrawealthy controlling orders of magnitude more wealth than they could even remotely need.
Secondly, again: claiming we need to help 'our own' before 'others' is inherently exclusionary. I count every person on Earth as 'our own'. You apparently don't.
wrote last edited by [email protected]True we have the resources in theory. The problem is that the necessary structural change to do that right now is so great that it can only be done by literally nuking civilization out of existence and starting over again. Seeing as that might not actually be a good option, we need to slow walk it because the other ways have been tried and they don’t end well
And yes I’m exclusionary because everyone else is. I would love to hop on a plane and move to somewhere in Spain right now. But guess what? They don’t make it that easy. That’s what I meant earlier when I said something about everyone being on the same legal framework. I couldn’t find th right words but the gist is that unless every country on earth has open borders then no country on earth should have open borders.
-
True we have the resources in theory. The problem is that the necessary structural change to do that right now is so great that it can only be done by literally nuking civilization out of existence and starting over again. Seeing as that might not actually be a good option, we need to slow walk it because the other ways have been tried and they don’t end well
And yes I’m exclusionary because everyone else is. I would love to hop on a plane and move to somewhere in Spain right now. But guess what? They don’t make it that easy. That’s what I meant earlier when I said something about everyone being on the same legal framework. I couldn’t find th right words but the gist is that unless every country on earth has open borders then no country on earth should have open borders.
Nope. Other countries having bad policy is no excuse for our country to. We're the fucking wealthiest country on Earth. Oh, and people like you who insist that structural change is impossible is the reason change is impossible. You are a self-fulfilling prophecy that continues our country's policy of commiting social murder. You are the problem.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
I'm too uneducated on politics (read: stupid) to even know what left and right means. Where do I land
-
I'm too uneducated on politics (read: stupid) to even know what left and right means. Where do I land
Right: in favor of privately owned means of production.
Left: in favor of publicly owned means of production. -
Nope. Other countries having bad policy is no excuse for our country to. We're the fucking wealthiest country on Earth. Oh, and people like you who insist that structural change is impossible is the reason change is impossible. You are a self-fulfilling prophecy that continues our country's policy of commiting social murder. You are the problem.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It’s weird that all countries have the same policies if they are so bad. But here’s the fact: the stronger your safety nets, the more difficult do you have to make immigration lest the system collapse. And allowing immigrants that cannot access the safety nets is a sure fire way to increase your crime rate because now you have a underclass that wouldn’t have existed. So yes the US should have laxer immigration policies than other countries, but not full blown open borders. Not unless there is a practical reason to do so, which there isn’t.
I never said it was impossible, I said we need to slow walk it because it can’t be radical, not unless you are willing to commit literal murder. I’d advocate for accelerationism first before I advocate for killing people who oppose you ideologically.
-
Reeeeeeeeeee I spouted centrist nonsense in a leftist space and I'm getting ratio'd reeeeeee
The ratio is not enough.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Let's be honest, the Nazis and Tankies align on like 98% of policy. They both support Donald Trump, for example. They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps. They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
-
Let's be honest, the Nazis and Tankies align on like 98% of policy. They both support Donald Trump, for example. They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps. They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
-
Let's be honest, the Nazis and Tankies align on like 98% of policy. They both support Donald Trump, for example. They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps. They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
And they are both downvoting you haha
-
And they are both downvoting you haha
There is literally only 1 downvote
-
This post did not contain any content.
tankies are such a small niche group, i dont think theres enough of them to have a significant on policy, unlike right wingers have real numbers on thier hands.
-
The enlightened centrism is strong in this one. No, the US don't have a conflict of left vs. right. The conflict is between the right and everyone else. And most of the right are just rubes who think they being part of some kind of movement but in reality are just being fleeced by a bunch of grifters
wrote last edited by [email protected]also the usa has never had a true left to begin with, being the most right wing of the western countries should be telling.its most like right on right-lite violence/rhetoric
-
The left is also fighting itself. Literally the comment chains in this post are prime examples.
People who probably align with the majority of the stances, tearing each other down with bad faith arguments, grandstanding over the remaining things they disagree on.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
I might not politically align with the average .ml user, but my views are a hell of a lot closer aligned with them than MAGAt views.
The left largely fights by arguing, which can lead to better ideas if people are open to listen. That isn't always the case, but it's a possibility. The right is fighting with homicide.
-
Let's be honest, the Nazis and Tankies align on like 98% of policy. They both support Donald Trump, for example. They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps. They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
They both support Donald Trump, for example.
lmao what?
They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps.
lmao what?
They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean total rule by one dude named proletariat, it means total rule by the people.
-
The left largely fights by arguing, which can lead to better ideas if people are open to listen. That isn't always the case, but it's a possibility. The right is fighting with homicide.
Liberals perceive criticism for enabling the right and opposing the left at every opportunity as left in-fighting.
The left identifies the liberals as part of the right.
-
I'm too uneducated on politics (read: stupid) to even know what left and right means. Where do I land
Well they are slightly vague terms, so please don't feel stupid. A shocking amount of people who think they know, don't know.
Left wing politics are generally about a rejection of hierarchy of people. Consequently, they tend to be interested in an international community because we are all the same and deserve the same. As freedom is something that everyone wants for themselves, the left tend to be in favor of an equally free community, e.g. freedom to love.
Right wing politica are generally about hierarchy of people. But not because the hierarchy is necessarily the point, but it tend to be in favor of maintaining the current state, Which just happens to be hierarchical. And usually everything get viewed from a hierarchical pov. E.g. nationalism is a hierarchical view of country and people, your country and its people above other country and their people.
Obviously you could point at the historical stance of us republicans that they want a small government and argue that a small government creates less of 2 class citizens, the law markers and the citizens. But the left would point out that a small government just enables the powerful people to exploit the weak people and create more 2 class citizens.
On the left: The strong hierarchy in the previous attempts of "communism" is the reason why some people will say that true communism was never tried. Other will argue that you need a little bit of authority to run a communustic state.
So the whole thing is a little more complex than "freedom" and "restrictions" and who supports what "restrictions" when.
-
Trying to pretend that there's a concerted far-left effort to create civil war in 'Murica is patently absurd
Idk man, I spent altogether too much time over in .ml, and now my view on what is "far left" has changed quite drastically. And that group certainly seems hell bent on starting a civil war.
There are absolutely far more MAGAs, but the tankies are, unfortunately, still far left.
Who over at .ml is trying to start a civil war?
-
There is literally only 1 downvote
-
Right: in favor of privately owned means of production.
Left: in favor of publicly owned means of production.might need to back up a little. personal, private, and public ownership are different things in one of the areas i worked in. same distinction? personal property is still legal, just privately held businesses not so much. brain's fuzzy, am i remembering right?
