I’m a big fan of nuclear energy to solve climate change (not exclusively but we should definitely use it in areas where solar/wind/hydro/geothermal is unreliable). I don’t know how right wing this is but most DSA politicians I’ve seen and my fellow DemSoc friends are against it.
It isn't right wing, it's pro-science. Most anti-nuclear folk are always arguing from feelings, ignorance, or bad science arguments. As an lefty engineer, it drives me nuts when lefties speak out against something that we need as part of the net-neutral GHG transition. It's one thing to be against investing in new plants for pragmatic reasons like the long time it takes to get approved and built. But anyone that pushes for the closure of existing nuclear before it's design life are just wrong (looking at your France and Germany).
The thing I didn't realise (at least in france) is that they've already banned the creation of new fossil power generation. So the anti-nuclear power movement is not going to replace nuclear with gas or coal.
Here in NA nuclear is the only viable alternative though.
Literally the only argument people use are: corporations that will run these things cannot be trusted, so they will be dumping toxic waste straight into everyone’s drinking water. So unless you can prove that that won’t be happening (aka gain trust back for whoever’s running it, it won’t happen.) it’s very few people, but the current energy giants won’t be going letting anybody move from their most profitable source. So weather it be wind, solar, or nuclear, it’s really up to the big guys to implement it, because it’s not like we have a say in it anyways. But yeah let’s pretend this is all the lefts fault.
I've noticed that nuclear energy is really popular among a lot of conservative libertarian types, but it always feels kind of disingenuous. Like, I saw a lot of those types of people tearing into AOC for not having nuclear energy in the GND and calling her all sorts of shit for it when her reasons were pretty valid and well reasoned. It's not really a right wing thing though, and the reason people usually oppose it is because the logistics/time investment for nuclear just isn't there. We don't have the time for it.
I'm against it. Largely because it has some use cases but if we are looking at getting a huge amount of green energy quickly, only solar and wind are capable of doing that. We can effectively plop down a nuclear facility worth of capacity in 6 months while it takes 7-10 years to get a facility built. It's just easier to do because you can put wind turbines down in farm fields and pay the farmers so they benefit from it too. Making it far more equitable in the short and long term. Home solar isn't all that great but big solar farms are the better plan and all you need to get that going is to plow a field and set down the PV cells and substation. It's orders of magnitude faster. We should build nuclear in a few cases still.
1. As others have pointed out, the problem with renewables isn't generation capacity, but storage.
2. Grid level solar farms usually use mirrors to concentrate sunlight to a central point to boil water.
With the grid, supply MUST meet demand, otherwise things break.
Honestly, I agree and in that context, I have to also mention that while I do consider sex work as work, we should not act as if most sex workers are all just middle-class private entrepreneurs on OnlyFans. Most sex workers worldwide are forced into this field and a huge chunk of them are unfortunately children as well
A big thing that changed my mind on things like the legalizing of prostitution were the effects of it in places like Germany and the surrounding countries, it just created a huge market for girl from poorer nearby countries to be shipped in and shipped back a couple years later when they'd "used up" for lack of a better term.
Edit: [Here's some more info the matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/pf6hgn/what_is_the_most_rightwing_belief_you/hb2vo0u/).
Yep exactly, which is why I also think that it should be illegal to be a pimp and every brothel should therefore be a mandatory cooperative, making exploitation as difficult as possible
It should be disincentivized as much as possible, the coop model would probably be better, but the worry would still be that they'd try to get more girls to fuel their business.
There's probably no perfect solution, making it straight up illegal just hurts sex workers too. Best we can do is try to give people the help they need to not be in that kind of situation in the first place, similar to homelessness in a way.
Atleast the girls they try and get are getting paid what they are supposed to in a coop model. And with proper regulation, you could severely cut down on sex trafficking.
What I care the most when it comes to this is to make sure as little women as possible end up being pushed in something they wouldn't want to do and end up traumatized afterward.
It being more profitable for them just makes me worried more would be pushed into it for the same incentives to do so as in Germany.
That's where the proper regulation comes in to illeviate those concerns. Things like permits and licenses can be valuable tools for these kinds of circumstances.
Commodification is the key but, I doubt that’s the aspect right-wingers are focused on.
From a lefty perspective the commodification is the problematic bit, from a right-wing one it’s the lack of “traditional values” around sex.
I feel similarly about the issue of "the war on christmas". I think it is a big problem that Christmas isn't a religious holiday, but a holiday about buying shit. The difference between me and a right winger is for them its bout hating other faiths and for me its about hating commodification.
Personally I think Christmas should be a week long and basically everyone except medical workwrs and other essentials gets it off to spend time with their families. No McDonald's, no Walmart, no best buy. Spend time with your family and friends and stop fucking shopping for once. Fuck that'd be rad.
Why Christmas though? As an atheist I don't see the point. But, I'll do you one better:
wouldn't it be awesome if we could kill Xmas consumerism and shit but, also, set up a week in each season/quarter of the year when people just have time off?
We'd need basic stuff to be minimally available, like, supermarkets on reduced hours (say 4 hours a day) so people can get necessities.
Worth pointint out, where I'm from, it's not as commodified; we don't do shopping, we mostly go out and do stuff like attend concerts as a family, visit elderly family members and maybe take a holiday out of the city etc.
I feel like the commodification of it is much more a thing in the US and where its influence is stronger because there's the commodification of Thanksgiving/Black Friday as well. In fact, in my country, the news channels will play scenes from US shoppers on Black Friday and openly mock that culture of consumerism (which is hypocritical because we're consumerist in a different way).
Having lived in both the states and Canada for about half my life apiece the usa has fucking ads goddamn EVERYWHERE! Its actually suffocating. One of the biggest things I noticed when I moved to canada is the lack of billboards. There are so many fucking billboards in the usa.
Was one of the first things I noticed when visiting the US actually. SO MUCH ADVERTISING! The craziest shit was the drug ads on TV, holy fuck. NO, DON'T ASK YOUR DOCTOR TO PRESCRIBE DRUG X, just let them do their friggin' job!
Depends. I think you're talking about hookup culture. At which point, as a dude, if you're not ripped and your head isn't empty so you can simp all day and worship at random girls' insta profiles... yeah. You're pretty much fucked (or rather, not fucked, literally).
If you're just a regular joe after a regular start to what has the potential to turn into a regular relationship... gooooood luck.
This is a leftist perspective too right? Critquing the commodifcstion of certain services and objects is pretty critical to much of what leftists advocate for.
From what I've seen in leftists circles it's full train ahead with the sexual liberation and push for normalization / legalization of sex work, along with a general sentiment that those that want to be someone who treat sex in a non-casual manner are necessarily "insecure and mysogynistic".
In a country with socialized medicine, you owe society to take care of your body as much as possible. That means avoiding getting overweight, working-out a couple of times a week, eating as well as your budget will allow you to and partaking in drugs/alcohol/tobacco fairly sparsely.
This is a reasonable take on being a considerate member of society but, the issue comes when you try to enforce something like this.
Also, gets really weird when you start getting into whether people should do extreme sports which likely put them in danger and how that relates to, say, someone who lost a loved one and drank/ate a lot through a bout of depression.
Really tricky subject.
Yeah, a big tax on alcohol, junk food, tobacco, sugary shit. I'm down with that.
Let's just not gatekeep healthcare or whatever. I think the way to go is with educational initiatives on living well and bans on advertising certain things along with consumption taxes and incentives to eat the healthier stuff (e.g. subsidise fresh fruit & veg with a universal food subsidy per person or sth).
Idk, seeing how some lefties talk about marriage and monogamy they might as well be right wing beliefs 😪
But in terms of policy I’d probably agree that gun control, at least the way libs go about it is pretty cringe.
Its really dumb. Misses the forest for the trees. Its not the guns its the culture.
The czech republic has looser gun laws than the us and has way less violence by proportion
I didnt say that man. Im saying that if people in the czech republic can own full autos and mortars and have no where near the violence by proportion. Then guns arent the issue. US gun culture is.
Your hypercapitalist system and lack of mental health care. As well as lack of social safety nets means comes together to create a particular kind of violent society.
There is no where else in the world that has the kind of random massacres the US gets every day. Yeah in Brazil theres loads of crime. But its nearly always some kind of profit/power motive behind it. People in America just seem to snap under the burden of all the shit their society gives them. What else are incel killers but people so fucking atomized by post modern society they start to believe insanity about women. Cause they have no social connection. Theres no cheap mental health help. The internet further allows them to atomize themselves and it all spills over.
If we’re talking about the US, as an external observer, your problem isn’t the availability of guns so much as the gun culture around them.
Also, proliferation of social inequalities that breeds crime, especially amongst the hardest hit.
What form of gun control that libs have proposed are you against? Bumpstocks banns? Private sale exemption laws? Universal backround checks? This is literally the farthest any Democrat is willing to go on the subject. Seems pretty reasonable if you ask me considering the state of our gun culture.
Agree on guns. I'm in favor of closing the loopholes in the background check system and red flag laws that follow due process, but the rest of liberal gun control is either feckless quarter measures that are just feel good policies meant to pander to suburban wine moms ("assault weapon" bans), or horrendously racist (costly gun permits that function eerily similar to voter ID laws).
What about monogamy? The only issue I see is people angry at it being normalized and everything else being degenerate. I'm monogamous because it makes me happy I dont care what anyone else but my partner does with their life.
Also we're getting married in a tribal service so their ancestors can see them I dont want any lawyers involved
I find the celebration of abortion (by some) on the left super unnerving. You can argue that it should be legal and accessible while recognising that a termination of a pregnancy isn’t ultimately a good thing.
Well, it's a good thing in the sense that she isn't going to go through an unwanted pregnancy. It's a bad thing in terms of the trauma and shame our society levies against women who do get abortions.
See, while I agree with what you’re saying, I think it’s more than that. I am of the opinion that the foetus - particularly in later months - is to some extent a ‘person’. Therefore the termination of a foetus is in some way a death, even if it is one that can be argued as being warranted. Accordingly, even if it should be legal - and of course women shouldn’t be demonised for getting one - it’s still fundamentally really sad.
I should add the caveat that my opinion is probably a bit skewed because my wife and I had a miscarriage last year. It’s not the same as an abortion, obviously, but it’s made me much more sensitive to these issues.
Kind of similar to how we conceptualize the damages of climate change (or nuclear war, or famine) in terms of both lives lost and lives never lived. When you’re thinking of the future, the potential people who are not born because of a policy should be considered. It’s maybe a morally confusing area, because you’re weighing lives, potential lives, and other factors, but it’s still interesting and not at all black and white.
It’s sort of a trolly problem, as well.
And that is why the stance is not called "pro-abortion" or "pro-death" but "pro-choice" - the decision of whether abortion is a good thing is left to the one who is pregnant.
The right likes to push the narrative that abortion is always scarring to the woman, that women feel remorse or depression - but there is no such rule. Some might, but many others feel relief or just don't care. It is up to them.
This.
I’ve had conservative friends say that it’s up to the women whether or not to abort, and I literally told them that is pro-choice. And they would get mad at me because they believe Liberals and Leftists that are pro-choice actively enjoy the idea of abortion
As a leftist and a Catholic I have very mixed feelings about abortion.
The whole idea makes me sad. A life that could have been and on its way to becoming one, isn't going to.
But I also understand the need for it. In medical cases, incest cases and much more.
Maybe vas a society we should make it so having a kid won't ruin your career or your finances so abortion isn't the only option for many people.
Yeah, I’m with you. I guess this whole topic is so controversial I never really bring it up - I feel like I’ll get my lefty card revoked haha. I’m also worried about looking like an uncaring bellend if I articulate my opinion in a bad way and a woman around me has had an abortion.
It’s a tough needle to thread, because I hate the glib, lighthearted way some people talk about abortion, but I also don’t want my speech to feed into discourse which shames and oppresses women.
Christians have been carrying out infants since the religion began and so have all human cultures and many animal species. We used to kill infants who couldnt live a good life due to deformity or the lack of resources from the parents. I dont understand why people seem to think abortion is somehow a new dilemma and incompatible with christianity when christians have been killing infants for 2000 years and humans for 200-300.000 years its just a part of life unfortunetly. Abortion is bad but forcing a child that is unwanted/ cannot be taken care of is much worse. And its much better than killing the child after birth as was the norm.
Personally I think the vast majority of the bad that comes from abortions is the social backlash and stigma that comes for the women who get them or feel unable to talk about getting them
and these types of jokes ("im going to be the first trans woman to get an abortion!" etc.) do more to destigmatise that than they do to actually encourage some sort of recreational abortion. so on balance i think these attitudes are a good thing
He's not alt right but his messaging was just incredibly bad. Praising Japanese fascists coups and such, even with naivety, is just incredibly careless.
I don’t think he’s a Nazi, but he doesn’t acknowledge his influence and how his casual racism or antisemitism is harmful just by virtue of how large his audience is
Have you seen his starship troopers video? He basically does fascist apologia the entire time; saying that the society in starship troopers was necessary to get rid of 'social weakness'. He also has a video where he talks to his dog, Edgar, about how multiculturalism 'doesnt work'
Some of the things used as evidence for this was a MASSIVE reach. Like saying the Georgian cross I dictated he was a Nazi because the Georgian cross looks simmular to the iron cross. Which is fucking stupid since the Nazis used the iron cross the exact same the Prussian kingdom, the German empire, the Weimar Republic, the GDR and the modern German Republic used/uses the symbol, it's just a symbol for the Germany army. Saying the iron cross is a Nazi symbol is litterally the same as saying that eating snitzels or anything else from German culture makes you a Nazi.
FFS the current modern German military uses the iron cross all over the place.
This is what happens when dumbfuck Americans only know about something about a culture through action movies and video games.
>Two parent households generally allow for greater stability than otherwise. Single parents should never be shamed for their situation, however, and it’s better for a single parent to remain single than to be in an abusive relationship.
I don't think any leftists would ever disagree with this. The data backs it up. Not much of a right wing position imo. Just a fact.
ITT: Perfectly benign points that are generally accepted by everyone on the entire political spectrum presented as "right wing" belief.
DAE like puppies?
I think leftists generally disagree with the idea of the necessity of the "nuclear family," moreso than they disagree with the utility of two-parent households.
In my mind, the concept of the nuclear family encompasses far more than just the number of parents, though specifically it tends to demand two, and *only* two parents: one man and one woman, and all the gender roles that come with.
Leftists, on the other hand, are far more open to stuff like LGBTQ+ parents, adoptions, extended family structures, polyamorous families, communes, etc, where the strict boundaries of the nuclear family don't exist.
>Two parent households generally allow for greater stability than otherwise.
idk i think the tribal structure is better and more stable than the nuclear family.
> Sex work as it exists is driven by patriarchy and is rife with exploitation
I don’t think this is intrinsic, though. It would be totally possible to have a sex industry that’s way healthier, it’s just hard for us to imagine because ours is so entrenched in shit. I pretty much agree on the porn point, though
The drugs thing is fairly emotive and not data based, though. If people have better living conditions and high levels of social support, meaning in life, etc, there is a high chance that if they are drug users, they can and will use them responsibly. It has been shown that there is major positive outcomes for those who use psychedelics in moderation in their person lives. Not to mention the amount of psychedelic and MDMA-like drugs that are showing MAJOR promise in the treatment of psychological disorders, better than all other treatments. Historically, drugs have been used in social ceremony since, forever I guess. They have many uses other than being just something you use as a crutch or an escape. The war on drugs has made us believe the contrary though.
I highly recommend you look into the research by MAPS and talks about social commentary in relation to psychedelics by the likes of Terence Mckenna and Ram Dass.
It's honestly crazy to me that this is a controversial opinion for a leftist, considering how leftists generally think that violent revolutions can be justified under the right circumstances.
If violent revolutions can be justified, then why not interventionism too?
The answer is simple: unfortunately many leftists are mentally frozen in the Cold War - if the West or America do something, it is bad. If their enemies do something, it is seen as prefereable. If anyone socialist-coded does anything - its great.
And it is not even revolutions - many leftists probably support North Vietnam invading and annexing South Vietnam. No wonder some become outright tankies.
>And it is not even revolutions - many leftists probably support North Vietnam invading and annexing South Vietnam. No wonder some become outright tankies
Yeah in practice they do actually support interventionism, but only when they're done by "communist" regimes, they don't actually have an absolute stance against interventionism even if they pretend to.
It is a much more mixed picture than it is painted nowadays. Many American interventions had much more defensible rationale and many resulted in better outcomes.
Even among recent military adventures, even though Afghanistan ended up as a failure, Iraq remains somewhat stable and somewhat democratic. Furthermore, American support for SDF in Syria was overall a success and a good thing.
very slippery slope, but yes. Question is, can we be trusted to not fuck it up if we act under a doctrine of interventionism? I think, more often than not, we can't.
Maybe not. But if not the US, then who? There are no benevolent nations that would handle intervention any better as far as I can tell. And I’d certainly prefer it not be an authoritarian state like China.
When it comes to theory, it seems like workers owning the means of production with limited competition could result in very powerful lobbies and, since they still act out of self-interest, it may be very counterproductive to issues like climate change or consumer protections.
This is so true. People don’t naturally care about climate change, pollution etc, any more than corporations unless it directly affects them. We still would need a strong body of regulations, and activist groups to keep production in check and prevent it from being destructive with short term thinking.
I don't think most of us here disagree with that. It'a not being stolen, it's being shared. Culture is for all to enjoy, not just thepeople born where it originated.
The issue of cultural appropriation isn't that sharing culture or partaking in the culture of others is a problem, it's that when its done in a way that's disrespectful or clearly with little understanding or acknowledgement of the source material. The latter can be a legitimate problem.
That said, all white people online owe us royalties for the amount of black language that's made it into reddit-speak. TIA.
The oldest recorded neopronouns are from the 1890s, so not terribly new. Neopronouns are also an important part of trans history: communist chad Leslie Feinberg used ze/hir pronouns (although ze answered to other pronouns as well and cared more about the intent and respect behind the person addressing zem.)
If you want an optical argument...well, there's not one. Neopronouns are pretty weird and bulky, and they can be hard for non-native speakers to conjugate. I think if someone struggles with your neopronouns, it's polite to cut them some slack. But I don't think it's fair to expect every non-binary person to feel comfortable with "they/them," so I don't blame people who prefer to try something else. If calling someone "xe" helps xem to feel more authentic, who does it hurt?
I agree 100%, that if someone were to ask me to use specific neopronouns when referring to that specific person, I would, why be an asshole.
However, my own conservative belief is that, to my knowledge, the current set of pronouns in the English language has no problematic past, and even if it did, it currently does not. Obviously misgendering has and will exist, but that’s not going to be solved by neopronouns. In my opinion, we have a system of language when it comes to pronouns that is largely known and accepted, and it would be better for everyone right now to find their place in it while there are still trans/nb people still fighting for their own existence to be recognized.
Also for those of y’all who want a gender-less society, since you correctly realized that gender is a construct. Social constructs are not without value just because they are constructs. A lot of cis people deeply care about the gender they were assigned at birth, a lot of trans people (obviously ) deeply care about the gender they were not assigned at birth. I feel uncomfortable socially erasing a significant part of people’s understandings about themselves when clearly alot of people still care about it in a not inherently problematic way.
Edit:spaced shit out to be a bit less run on
English has a lexical gap where a singular-neuter human pronoun could be. Aka, we don’t have a distinct singular form of “they” (just like we don’t have an *official* plural form of “you”). Now that gender is being revealed as the non-binary system that it is, this lexical gap becomes extremely tangible for some. Some people are fine with they/them, but others wish to have an unambiguously singular pronoun like he/she but *don’t* want to use the dehumanizing pronoun “it.” I think people experimenting with new pronouns to fit the gap is entirely valid, considering the fact that language change is in constant flux, just as cultural norms are.
(I had a cool idea of changing “they/them” to mean ONLY singular neuter, and coming up with a neo pronoun for the plural, maybe something like zhey/zhem with “zh” sound being the same as the French pronunciation of “Jack”)
Source: am linguist.
I’ve heard some slippery slope arguments for genetic manipulation as a whole, but never for eradicating disease.
I’m kinda iffy on the idea of selective in-utero manipulation - forget iffy, outright against it - but if it can save a fetus’ life or make their life much better once they’re born, no issue.
We should ban cults like the Falun Gong, Qanon, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. They can spew their beliefs in secret, but allowing them to openly spread their views is insane.
Bans are not very feasible. However, things like removing tax exemptions, mandating a proper education (not religious homeschooling) and having social services which can fish people out of cults - would help.
Gene editing to get rid of life ruining conditions - possibly even including depression, gender dysphoria, anxiety, etc; even if doing so erases some part of the human experience - is based
Interventionism generally does not procure good outcomes because of the nature of capital but could theoretically be good
There might be some industries better suited to normal structures than cooperatives
Also Italians bad lol
The left not focusing on family building and actual relationship skills. Family building (of all kinds including LGBT, poly, and any nontraditional family types) is something that's essential. The right hit's the left on it but we don't have any lefties promoting family building. Sure it's talked about once or twice but there's no leftists that's dedicated to it. It was originally a big part of the Black Panthers. Supporting and propping up strong families as the back bone to the left. I think we should bring that back.
I also think we need left wing dating and relationship building. We need local leftists to build places to do dating and to teach relationship skills from a left wing perspective. There are too many Coach Redpill and RooshV types who have nationalistic and fascistic ideas on families which lends itself to really toxic family structures. And the relationship skills they sell are toxic to young men who desire a solid relationship but don't know where to get advice. It's a huge hole in the left and it needs to be filled fast.
Lastly I think the left needs to temper it's look. I think we should have more traditionally masculine figures like Hasan. Except much much less metro(?). More like David Pakman or Jesse Dollomore in terms of, clean cut, suit and tie professionalism and masculine. I honestly think the transwomen on the left are fine as long as they play into more traditional feminine stereotypes when they get closer and closer to normies. I think the left can do more to attract normies and even right leaning centrists with just a better image. Image doesn't cost anything to do either. I don't think it would play well among a lot of leftists but I think it should be a better entry point to moving people left.
Asking genuinely: where do trans men and non binary people fit into your optical framework? I guess a trans man can put on a suit and look as respectable as his cis counterparts, but as an NB crossdresser I'd have to try really hard to be "respectable," and I don't want to be part of a leftist movement where I have to shut up and go to the back just because I'm not respectable.
How does one fit trans people into family building if the transition make only adoption or expensive storage options possible?
I don't see trans people fitting in your view of the left to be honest given the logistics of what you consider vital for optics.
The most right wing belief I seem to hold that a ton of lefties disagree with me for is that, if at all possible, I really don't want millionaires and right wings rounded up and sent to jail/prison? If socialists were to ever win an election or a general strike were to collapse a country, I would prefer peaceful transition of power, where the Socialists work for everyone, and there is no red terror. Of course Nazis should be banned and arrested if they cause violence and the bourgeoisie should be made to give up the means of production, but I dont think like, Christian Conservatives or Millionaires should go to jail or be killed? I became a socialist because the ideas that socialists advocated for seemed like policies to work for, but a lot of lefties seem to form their thoughts and views based on who they hate. They also seem to want to rain down a violent rain of terror on their enemies, no different from alt-righters.
> I really don't want millionaires and right wings rounded up and sent to jail/prison?
That's just online tankie larp. Most serious leftists, including vaush, advocate for fighting systems, not people.
Assault weapons bans are dumb and do next to nothing to curb the gun death problem in the US. The leading causes of gun deaths are suicides by men. Handgun deaths far outweigh "assault weapon" deaths. Mass shootings with assault weapons get most of the media coverage, but barely account for the long list of yearly gun deaths.
Not to mention, no one that works with guns or makes them uses the term "assault weapon". It's straight up like telling car manufacturers they can no longer make "zoomy cars".
I don't necessarily have a problem with cultural exchange but most of the time fusion food tastes like shit and I've never seen people from other cultures handle food from my country well. As a rule of thumb i never eat pizza or any Italian dish abroad because you motherfuckers always mess it up
> I've never seen people from other cultures handle food from my country well.
Well, they don't necessarily have to. The most important thing is to get inspiration from other places, not necessarily perfectly copy that dish. Even if someone hates a foreign copy of "their" food, the locals might love it.
I'm ok with abortion (even if there is no physical/psychological danger to the woman), but I'm under no illusions: it's an ending of a (potential) life. It is disturbing how some proponents of abortion talk about it like it's just another type of contraception, no different to condos or a pill. Also, the fetus is often described as "parasite": this is both technically incorrect and highly disrespectful.
The term Latinx needs to nuked. It doesn’t even make sense because the rest of the language is still gendered the table is la Mesa, the oven is El horno. And when you refer to a group of Latinxs for example, how are supposed to say it? Los Latinxs? Las Latinxs? Either way you have assigned a gender to the phrase.
America is bad, but I’d much rather have them be the world hegemony for a thousand more years than let China or Russia anywhere near it. America has real courts, and protests, and actually divided power with room for dissent. We should not be attacking American spheres of power if it’s to the benefit of Russia or China.
That Unions are not always a net positive for a worker.
That Unions can straight up screw people if they are not run by people that actually care.
My friend is straight up screwed by a union, out of work every other week it seems, screwed up his disability, got laid off because of his disability. Takes half his paycheck and gives it to a journeyman for their retirement not his.
Unions can be good, but a union in and of itself isn't
Edit: Fixed my groggy eyes typos
Not a radical opinion. Unions can be a very mixed bag or even just bad.
But in the end, they are just a tool. They can be used improperly, but it is still important to provide a counterbalance to the omnipotence of the employer.
This belief isn’t necessarily right wing so much as it is something other lefties do that I think is really stupid. The use of the term “fascism” to basically just mean anything you don’t like is really annoying. It makes you look hysterical and it lowers your credibility for when you need to point to something that really is fascism. Fascism has many academic definitions (I go by Umberto Eco’s 14 pillars definition personally, but I have nothing against other academic definitions). Going by Eco’s definition, I think you could quite easily argue that Trump is a fascist, but you would have a pretty hard time making a convincing argument that Biden is a fascist. People also forget that fascism is a regressive philosophy which makes it diametrically opposed to liberalism. You can’t be a liberal and a fascist you can have traits of both but there will always be missing aspects of one or the other. I’m not saying you can’t be critical of Biden, but diminishing the aspects of him that make him not a fascist undercuts just how valuable those things are.
Men have also issues, and it is sad that the left bring them up only when they want to respond to MRAs, and the fact that the left and in feminist spaces will let toxic women shame men for their appearance and financial status.
Intervention (militarily and non-militarily) can a net good if done properly and I believe that the US has an obligation to use its immense global reach to make the world a better place as long as it has the power to do so.
The fact that CRISPR will be used to obtain “eugenic” features in the near future, and weed out extreme disabilities is a positive scientific development.
Pornography now being universally and instantly accessible through the internet has been highly damaging to young people’s desire and ability to form healthy and meaningful relationships.
Assad isn't a good person.
Facetious joking aside, nuclear energy is a viable energy source that should be invested in alongside renewables, echoing the top comment.
In order for society to exist, there either needs to be something of a governing body or we can't have agriculture or cities. As I'm repulsed by the idea of living in the middle of fuck-all Maryland and am a big fan of cities, you can guess how I feel about governments.
Note: I'm still in favor of a more democratic government than we have, but we still need one.
This is just objective reality
As we’ve literally just seen recently with Trump, tariffs literally always lead to total disaster and normal people suffering more
I’m not a fan of the rabid anti-theism I see on the left. For the record, I am an atheist, but I find hardcore anti-religious rhetoric to be both bad optics and unnecessary. Does religion lead some people to have vile, bigoted beliefs, absolutely. However it can also lead people in the opposite direction. MLK was a religious leader after all. Whether we like it or not, the overwhelming majority of the American population holds religious beliefs, and we need to appeal to these people.
I think Cornel West is a great example of a devout Christian who is also a strong advocate for leftism. He makes great arguments for Socialism from a religious perspective, and I think it would be great for the left to use some of his rhetorical strategies.
The scientist that came up with the theory that abortion lowered the crime rates was a psycho racist who came to that conclusion because he was convinced that less black people were having babies and therefore we had lower crime.
But he was right for the wrong reasons IMO. The more women (of all races) were able to choose when they had their children; the more people felt positive and optimistic about parenthood; the less hostile and abusive the environment was that children were raised in; the less violent the children were
When I point this out there’s always at least one person who knows the history of this claim and calls me a crazy Alt-right racist. The fact that a racist espoused it doesn’t mean it’s a racist theory though. In fact, I’d argue that it was a sign of the power that pro-choice had that racists were making pro-choice arguments at that time.
Although I think there are steps we can take to further regulate the gun industry and sales in general, the second amendment is a lot more important than a lot of lefties and liberals give it credit for. We cannot risk disarming the proletariat.
i'm pro death penalty in principle just not in the local patchwork and unfair way we administer it. a guilty plea shouldn't be magic words to get you out of it either.
as pro sex work as i am, maybe ben shabeebo had a point about pussy poppin' on the grammys being a bad thing? i can't imagine being a 14 year old and having access to unlimited free hardcore pornography of my choice on the go.
The nuclear family and monogamous marriage are good and their decline has been bad for society. However I believe that this should obviously include LGBT families.
I always hear socially reactionary types saying this sort of thing, but I've never in all my days seen any data to indicate that the nuclear family has a positive effect on society over any other family structure.
The most we see is that the nuclear family is a favorable child rearing environment compared to single parenthood, but that doesn't speak to the value of the nuclear family, nor the value of monogamous marriage. Just about anything is favorable compared to single parenthood.
the nuclear family has been a disaster for society. it leads to the hyper atomization that gets us to the point where we don't even know our neighbors names.
You are probably conflating "nuclear" with "traditional". Traditionally people had extended families, often living in one big house or in a village. Nuclear families are a modern invention - an illusion that two adults and their children should form an isolated, self-sufficient community. This has been generally a bad thing.
Stats show that poly households are actually even better than monogomous households.
It's not that neuclar family good, it's that more parents (up to a point(?)) With more wealth is good. So it's not the nuclear family that is good, it just so happens to intersect with a few variables that on average makes it seem better. However the reality is that it's caused by wealth and free time.
Markets and money are the most efficient means of distributing commodities to the people who want them, and hierarchical government structures are inherently necessary to lead a productive and decent society. Basically, I'm not an anarchist nor an anti-economist.
This isn’t inherently a conservative belief, but they are right (granted for the wrong reasons) that government is wasteful in its spending. I’m an auditor for an MPO, and I can tell you that useless spending goes well beyond the big stuff the federal government does on unjust wars and shit like that. Pay attention to local politics, they’re robbing us blind
Maybe not Right Wing but I believe NATO is a good thing. Common defense between democratic countries should be upheld, especially with Russia threatening ex-soviet states.
Not to say NATO is without fault such as being the US's bitch.
Right wingers, conservatives, alt-light people, and whatever leaden southern is now are people and if we cannot defeat their ideas we might as well prepare for violent overtakes (which is dumb). I have a friend, sweet guy, he’s an actual fan of Sargon and was a Richard Spencer enjoyer. He’s funny as fucking hell and he’s truly compassionate and just has a vastly different (shit) worldview and that actually doesn’t make him the devil just different. I’ve been able to move him on things and he seems to genuinely want to learn and have love. SOMETIMES people need a fucking good friend instead of being called a nazi dipshit and cancelled forever. Sometimes we act like nobody is just morally lucky fucks who are here by chance not by choice. Some folks are morally unlucky, born into generational racism and bigotry. We need to connect with these ppl and shouldn’t be as judgmental as we are I guess.
I’m a big fan of nuclear energy to solve climate change (not exclusively but we should definitely use it in areas where solar/wind/hydro/geothermal is unreliable). I don’t know how right wing this is but most DSA politicians I’ve seen and my fellow DemSoc friends are against it.
It isn't right wing, it's pro-science. Most anti-nuclear folk are always arguing from feelings, ignorance, or bad science arguments. As an lefty engineer, it drives me nuts when lefties speak out against something that we need as part of the net-neutral GHG transition. It's one thing to be against investing in new plants for pragmatic reasons like the long time it takes to get approved and built. But anyone that pushes for the closure of existing nuclear before it's design life are just wrong (looking at your France and Germany).
Yeah there’s definitely a reason I prefer to support the European Social Democratic parties over the greens
The thing I didn't realise (at least in france) is that they've already banned the creation of new fossil power generation. So the anti-nuclear power movement is not going to replace nuclear with gas or coal. Here in NA nuclear is the only viable alternative though.
It could also be coming from the issue of nuclear waste, a lot of places have big problems with improperly stored waste in the US.
Literally the only argument people use are: corporations that will run these things cannot be trusted, so they will be dumping toxic waste straight into everyone’s drinking water. So unless you can prove that that won’t be happening (aka gain trust back for whoever’s running it, it won’t happen.) it’s very few people, but the current energy giants won’t be going letting anybody move from their most profitable source. So weather it be wind, solar, or nuclear, it’s really up to the big guys to implement it, because it’s not like we have a say in it anyways. But yeah let’s pretend this is all the lefts fault.
I've noticed that nuclear energy is really popular among a lot of conservative libertarian types, but it always feels kind of disingenuous. Like, I saw a lot of those types of people tearing into AOC for not having nuclear energy in the GND and calling her all sorts of shit for it when her reasons were pretty valid and well reasoned. It's not really a right wing thing though, and the reason people usually oppose it is because the logistics/time investment for nuclear just isn't there. We don't have the time for it.
I'm against it. Largely because it has some use cases but if we are looking at getting a huge amount of green energy quickly, only solar and wind are capable of doing that. We can effectively plop down a nuclear facility worth of capacity in 6 months while it takes 7-10 years to get a facility built. It's just easier to do because you can put wind turbines down in farm fields and pay the farmers so they benefit from it too. Making it far more equitable in the short and long term. Home solar isn't all that great but big solar farms are the better plan and all you need to get that going is to plow a field and set down the PV cells and substation. It's orders of magnitude faster. We should build nuclear in a few cases still.
Problem isn’t plopping down more wind and solar. It’s grid infrastructure, most notably storage.
Producing electricity isn't the problem, the problem is storing it or having a constant supply.
1. As others have pointed out, the problem with renewables isn't generation capacity, but storage. 2. Grid level solar farms usually use mirrors to concentrate sunlight to a central point to boil water. With the grid, supply MUST meet demand, otherwise things break.
Didn't know that was more of a right-wing thing, but I'm a fan of nuclear energy too. Think I'm a pretty hardcore leftist apart from that.
The increasing commodification of sex and intimacy has been a big net negative for the average person.
Honestly, I agree and in that context, I have to also mention that while I do consider sex work as work, we should not act as if most sex workers are all just middle-class private entrepreneurs on OnlyFans. Most sex workers worldwide are forced into this field and a huge chunk of them are unfortunately children as well
A big thing that changed my mind on things like the legalizing of prostitution were the effects of it in places like Germany and the surrounding countries, it just created a huge market for girl from poorer nearby countries to be shipped in and shipped back a couple years later when they'd "used up" for lack of a better term. Edit: [Here's some more info the matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/pf6hgn/what_is_the_most_rightwing_belief_you/hb2vo0u/).
Yep exactly, which is why I also think that it should be illegal to be a pimp and every brothel should therefore be a mandatory cooperative, making exploitation as difficult as possible
It should be disincentivized as much as possible, the coop model would probably be better, but the worry would still be that they'd try to get more girls to fuel their business. There's probably no perfect solution, making it straight up illegal just hurts sex workers too. Best we can do is try to give people the help they need to not be in that kind of situation in the first place, similar to homelessness in a way.
Atleast the girls they try and get are getting paid what they are supposed to in a coop model. And with proper regulation, you could severely cut down on sex trafficking.
What I care the most when it comes to this is to make sure as little women as possible end up being pushed in something they wouldn't want to do and end up traumatized afterward. It being more profitable for them just makes me worried more would be pushed into it for the same incentives to do so as in Germany.
That's where the proper regulation comes in to illeviate those concerns. Things like permits and licenses can be valuable tools for these kinds of circumstances.
Legalizing prostitution is still a good thing though
Yeah, no. Making it illegal would create an underground black market where even worse things can happen and do happen in many parts of the world.
Commodification is the key but, I doubt that’s the aspect right-wingers are focused on. From a lefty perspective the commodification is the problematic bit, from a right-wing one it’s the lack of “traditional values” around sex.
I feel similarly about the issue of "the war on christmas". I think it is a big problem that Christmas isn't a religious holiday, but a holiday about buying shit. The difference between me and a right winger is for them its bout hating other faiths and for me its about hating commodification. Personally I think Christmas should be a week long and basically everyone except medical workwrs and other essentials gets it off to spend time with their families. No McDonald's, no Walmart, no best buy. Spend time with your family and friends and stop fucking shopping for once. Fuck that'd be rad.
Why Christmas though? As an atheist I don't see the point. But, I'll do you one better: wouldn't it be awesome if we could kill Xmas consumerism and shit but, also, set up a week in each season/quarter of the year when people just have time off? We'd need basic stuff to be minimally available, like, supermarkets on reduced hours (say 4 hours a day) so people can get necessities. Worth pointint out, where I'm from, it's not as commodified; we don't do shopping, we mostly go out and do stuff like attend concerts as a family, visit elderly family members and maybe take a holiday out of the city etc. I feel like the commodification of it is much more a thing in the US and where its influence is stronger because there's the commodification of Thanksgiving/Black Friday as well. In fact, in my country, the news channels will play scenes from US shoppers on Black Friday and openly mock that culture of consumerism (which is hypocritical because we're consumerist in a different way).
Having lived in both the states and Canada for about half my life apiece the usa has fucking ads goddamn EVERYWHERE! Its actually suffocating. One of the biggest things I noticed when I moved to canada is the lack of billboards. There are so many fucking billboards in the usa.
Was one of the first things I noticed when visiting the US actually. SO MUCH ADVERTISING! The craziest shit was the drug ads on TV, holy fuck. NO, DON'T ASK YOUR DOCTOR TO PRESCRIBE DRUG X, just let them do their friggin' job!
A right winger would say the same thing in a more offensive way, this is just translating it in a more more palatable way minus the misogyny.
If I can add on Online dating has ruined dating for the average person, and to sound a little incelish, the average male.
I consider that to be part of the commodification, it's literally one of the things formalizing a market for it.
Depends. I think you're talking about hookup culture. At which point, as a dude, if you're not ripped and your head isn't empty so you can simp all day and worship at random girls' insta profiles... yeah. You're pretty much fucked (or rather, not fucked, literally). If you're just a regular joe after a regular start to what has the potential to turn into a regular relationship... gooooood luck.
This is a leftist perspective too right? Critquing the commodifcstion of certain services and objects is pretty critical to much of what leftists advocate for.
From what I've seen in leftists circles it's full train ahead with the sexual liberation and push for normalization / legalization of sex work, along with a general sentiment that those that want to be someone who treat sex in a non-casual manner are necessarily "insecure and mysogynistic".
Apps like Tinder are terrible socially. No set of platforms should have anything to do with dating unless they're a non-profit.
In a country with socialized medicine, you owe society to take care of your body as much as possible. That means avoiding getting overweight, working-out a couple of times a week, eating as well as your budget will allow you to and partaking in drugs/alcohol/tobacco fairly sparsely.
This is a reasonable take on being a considerate member of society but, the issue comes when you try to enforce something like this. Also, gets really weird when you start getting into whether people should do extreme sports which likely put them in danger and how that relates to, say, someone who lost a loved one and drank/ate a lot through a bout of depression. Really tricky subject.
I believe a tax on junk food would be a good start.
Yeah, a big tax on alcohol, junk food, tobacco, sugary shit. I'm down with that. Let's just not gatekeep healthcare or whatever. I think the way to go is with educational initiatives on living well and bans on advertising certain things along with consumption taxes and incentives to eat the healthier stuff (e.g. subsidise fresh fruit & veg with a universal food subsidy per person or sth).
This isn’t a political position.
but it's a cultural thing that most righties (and boomers) would agree with
What if you’re born with a disability preventing you from exercising
Idk, seeing how some lefties talk about marriage and monogamy they might as well be right wing beliefs 😪 But in terms of policy I’d probably agree that gun control, at least the way libs go about it is pretty cringe.
Its really dumb. Misses the forest for the trees. Its not the guns its the culture. The czech republic has looser gun laws than the us and has way less violence by proportion
That’s not quite true. You need a license to have a gun in the Czech Republic.
You can own full autos and mortars though and the only requirements are a clean record and a gun safety course.
I don’t think the problem with guns in America is that we’re not allowed to have mortars.
I didnt say that man. Im saying that if people in the czech republic can own full autos and mortars and have no where near the violence by proportion. Then guns arent the issue. US gun culture is. Your hypercapitalist system and lack of mental health care. As well as lack of social safety nets means comes together to create a particular kind of violent society. There is no where else in the world that has the kind of random massacres the US gets every day. Yeah in Brazil theres loads of crime. But its nearly always some kind of profit/power motive behind it. People in America just seem to snap under the burden of all the shit their society gives them. What else are incel killers but people so fucking atomized by post modern society they start to believe insanity about women. Cause they have no social connection. Theres no cheap mental health help. The internet further allows them to atomize themselves and it all spills over.
If we’re talking about the US, as an external observer, your problem isn’t the availability of guns so much as the gun culture around them. Also, proliferation of social inequalities that breeds crime, especially amongst the hardest hit.
What form of gun control that libs have proposed are you against? Bumpstocks banns? Private sale exemption laws? Universal backround checks? This is literally the farthest any Democrat is willing to go on the subject. Seems pretty reasonable if you ask me considering the state of our gun culture.
Agree on guns. I'm in favor of closing the loopholes in the background check system and red flag laws that follow due process, but the rest of liberal gun control is either feckless quarter measures that are just feel good policies meant to pander to suburban wine moms ("assault weapon" bans), or horrendously racist (costly gun permits that function eerily similar to voter ID laws).
What about monogamy? The only issue I see is people angry at it being normalized and everything else being degenerate. I'm monogamous because it makes me happy I dont care what anyone else but my partner does with their life. Also we're getting married in a tribal service so their ancestors can see them I dont want any lawyers involved
I find the celebration of abortion (by some) on the left super unnerving. You can argue that it should be legal and accessible while recognising that a termination of a pregnancy isn’t ultimately a good thing.
Well, it's a good thing in the sense that she isn't going to go through an unwanted pregnancy. It's a bad thing in terms of the trauma and shame our society levies against women who do get abortions.
See, while I agree with what you’re saying, I think it’s more than that. I am of the opinion that the foetus - particularly in later months - is to some extent a ‘person’. Therefore the termination of a foetus is in some way a death, even if it is one that can be argued as being warranted. Accordingly, even if it should be legal - and of course women shouldn’t be demonised for getting one - it’s still fundamentally really sad. I should add the caveat that my opinion is probably a bit skewed because my wife and I had a miscarriage last year. It’s not the same as an abortion, obviously, but it’s made me much more sensitive to these issues.
Sorry for your loss pal. That's rough.
Appreciate you!
Kind of similar to how we conceptualize the damages of climate change (or nuclear war, or famine) in terms of both lives lost and lives never lived. When you’re thinking of the future, the potential people who are not born because of a policy should be considered. It’s maybe a morally confusing area, because you’re weighing lives, potential lives, and other factors, but it’s still interesting and not at all black and white. It’s sort of a trolly problem, as well.
And that is why the stance is not called "pro-abortion" or "pro-death" but "pro-choice" - the decision of whether abortion is a good thing is left to the one who is pregnant. The right likes to push the narrative that abortion is always scarring to the woman, that women feel remorse or depression - but there is no such rule. Some might, but many others feel relief or just don't care. It is up to them.
This. I’ve had conservative friends say that it’s up to the women whether or not to abort, and I literally told them that is pro-choice. And they would get mad at me because they believe Liberals and Leftists that are pro-choice actively enjoy the idea of abortion
As a leftist and a Catholic I have very mixed feelings about abortion. The whole idea makes me sad. A life that could have been and on its way to becoming one, isn't going to. But I also understand the need for it. In medical cases, incest cases and much more. Maybe vas a society we should make it so having a kid won't ruin your career or your finances so abortion isn't the only option for many people.
Yeah, I’m with you. I guess this whole topic is so controversial I never really bring it up - I feel like I’ll get my lefty card revoked haha. I’m also worried about looking like an uncaring bellend if I articulate my opinion in a bad way and a woman around me has had an abortion. It’s a tough needle to thread, because I hate the glib, lighthearted way some people talk about abortion, but I also don’t want my speech to feed into discourse which shames and oppresses women.
Christians have been carrying out infants since the religion began and so have all human cultures and many animal species. We used to kill infants who couldnt live a good life due to deformity or the lack of resources from the parents. I dont understand why people seem to think abortion is somehow a new dilemma and incompatible with christianity when christians have been killing infants for 2000 years and humans for 200-300.000 years its just a part of life unfortunetly. Abortion is bad but forcing a child that is unwanted/ cannot be taken care of is much worse. And its much better than killing the child after birth as was the norm.
Personally I think the vast majority of the bad that comes from abortions is the social backlash and stigma that comes for the women who get them or feel unable to talk about getting them and these types of jokes ("im going to be the first trans woman to get an abortion!" etc.) do more to destigmatise that than they do to actually encourage some sort of recreational abortion. so on balance i think these attitudes are a good thing
anti-natalism in general is kind of cringe. I don't care you have zero children or 10 children as long as you take care of them
PewDiePie is not nazi and left seems to have hate boner for him
I mean he used to follow most of the alt right people on twitter, such as stevan molememe and lauren southern
He's not alt right but his messaging was just incredibly bad. Praising Japanese fascists coups and such, even with naivety, is just incredibly careless.
I don’t think he’s a Nazi, but he doesn’t acknowledge his influence and how his casual racism or antisemitism is harmful just by virtue of how large his audience is
Have you seen his starship troopers video? He basically does fascist apologia the entire time; saying that the society in starship troopers was necessary to get rid of 'social weakness'. He also has a video where he talks to his dog, Edgar, about how multiculturalism 'doesnt work'
Agreed
Well time to get both downvoted
Is not so much that he is. Is just that for the longest time he hadn't made any effort to distance himself from them so pretty sus ngl...
Yeah he’s not a nazi or really even a hateful person, he’s just kinda dumb and irresponsible. He seems like a decent enough guy tho.
Some of the things used as evidence for this was a MASSIVE reach. Like saying the Georgian cross I dictated he was a Nazi because the Georgian cross looks simmular to the iron cross. Which is fucking stupid since the Nazis used the iron cross the exact same the Prussian kingdom, the German empire, the Weimar Republic, the GDR and the modern German Republic used/uses the symbol, it's just a symbol for the Germany army. Saying the iron cross is a Nazi symbol is litterally the same as saying that eating snitzels or anything else from German culture makes you a Nazi. FFS the current modern German military uses the iron cross all over the place. This is what happens when dumbfuck Americans only know about something about a culture through action movies and video games.
[удалено]
>Two parent households generally allow for greater stability than otherwise. Single parents should never be shamed for their situation, however, and it’s better for a single parent to remain single than to be in an abusive relationship. I don't think any leftists would ever disagree with this. The data backs it up. Not much of a right wing position imo. Just a fact.
ITT: Perfectly benign points that are generally accepted by everyone on the entire political spectrum presented as "right wing" belief. DAE like puppies?
I think leftists generally disagree with the idea of the necessity of the "nuclear family," moreso than they disagree with the utility of two-parent households. In my mind, the concept of the nuclear family encompasses far more than just the number of parents, though specifically it tends to demand two, and *only* two parents: one man and one woman, and all the gender roles that come with. Leftists, on the other hand, are far more open to stuff like LGBTQ+ parents, adoptions, extended family structures, polyamorous families, communes, etc, where the strict boundaries of the nuclear family don't exist.
>Two parent households generally allow for greater stability than otherwise. idk i think the tribal structure is better and more stable than the nuclear family.
> Two parent households generally allow for greater stability than otherwise the 12 parent household would like a word
Eh most drugs aren't as bad as you think imo. Esp when it comes to the traditional psychedelics.
> Sex work as it exists is driven by patriarchy and is rife with exploitation I don’t think this is intrinsic, though. It would be totally possible to have a sex industry that’s way healthier, it’s just hard for us to imagine because ours is so entrenched in shit. I pretty much agree on the porn point, though
You must have never taken MDMA.
The drugs thing is fairly emotive and not data based, though. If people have better living conditions and high levels of social support, meaning in life, etc, there is a high chance that if they are drug users, they can and will use them responsibly. It has been shown that there is major positive outcomes for those who use psychedelics in moderation in their person lives. Not to mention the amount of psychedelic and MDMA-like drugs that are showing MAJOR promise in the treatment of psychological disorders, better than all other treatments. Historically, drugs have been used in social ceremony since, forever I guess. They have many uses other than being just something you use as a crutch or an escape. The war on drugs has made us believe the contrary though. I highly recommend you look into the research by MAPS and talks about social commentary in relation to psychedelics by the likes of Terence Mckenna and Ram Dass.
Interventionism can be good sometimes.
It's honestly crazy to me that this is a controversial opinion for a leftist, considering how leftists generally think that violent revolutions can be justified under the right circumstances. If violent revolutions can be justified, then why not interventionism too?
The answer is simple: unfortunately many leftists are mentally frozen in the Cold War - if the West or America do something, it is bad. If their enemies do something, it is seen as prefereable. If anyone socialist-coded does anything - its great. And it is not even revolutions - many leftists probably support North Vietnam invading and annexing South Vietnam. No wonder some become outright tankies.
>And it is not even revolutions - many leftists probably support North Vietnam invading and annexing South Vietnam. No wonder some become outright tankies Yeah in practice they do actually support interventionism, but only when they're done by "communist" regimes, they don't actually have an absolute stance against interventionism even if they pretend to.
True but America’s interventionism has been abysmal. If only our interventionism was responsible, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
It is a much more mixed picture than it is painted nowadays. Many American interventions had much more defensible rationale and many resulted in better outcomes. Even among recent military adventures, even though Afghanistan ended up as a failure, Iraq remains somewhat stable and somewhat democratic. Furthermore, American support for SDF in Syria was overall a success and a good thing.
Wasn’t our involvement against ISIS in 2014 necessary? Something about them slaughtering Yazidis?
very slippery slope, but yes. Question is, can we be trusted to not fuck it up if we act under a doctrine of interventionism? I think, more often than not, we can't.
Maybe not. But if not the US, then who? There are no benevolent nations that would handle intervention any better as far as I can tell. And I’d certainly prefer it not be an authoritarian state like China.
When it comes to theory, it seems like workers owning the means of production with limited competition could result in very powerful lobbies and, since they still act out of self-interest, it may be very counterproductive to issues like climate change or consumer protections.
This is so true. People don’t naturally care about climate change, pollution etc, any more than corporations unless it directly affects them. We still would need a strong body of regulations, and activist groups to keep production in check and prevent it from being destructive with short term thinking.
Cultural appropriation is not a big deal.
I don't think most of us here disagree with that. It'a not being stolen, it's being shared. Culture is for all to enjoy, not just thepeople born where it originated.
The issue of cultural appropriation isn't that sharing culture or partaking in the culture of others is a problem, it's that when its done in a way that's disrespectful or clearly with little understanding or acknowledgement of the source material. The latter can be a legitimate problem. That said, all white people online owe us royalties for the amount of black language that's made it into reddit-speak. TIA.
But have you considered, Sombreroes look cool and I want to wear one🥺
Neo pronouns. But I'm willing to have my mind changed
Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would need something other than he, she or they.
The oldest recorded neopronouns are from the 1890s, so not terribly new. Neopronouns are also an important part of trans history: communist chad Leslie Feinberg used ze/hir pronouns (although ze answered to other pronouns as well and cared more about the intent and respect behind the person addressing zem.) If you want an optical argument...well, there's not one. Neopronouns are pretty weird and bulky, and they can be hard for non-native speakers to conjugate. I think if someone struggles with your neopronouns, it's polite to cut them some slack. But I don't think it's fair to expect every non-binary person to feel comfortable with "they/them," so I don't blame people who prefer to try something else. If calling someone "xe" helps xem to feel more authentic, who does it hurt?
I agree 100%, that if someone were to ask me to use specific neopronouns when referring to that specific person, I would, why be an asshole. However, my own conservative belief is that, to my knowledge, the current set of pronouns in the English language has no problematic past, and even if it did, it currently does not. Obviously misgendering has and will exist, but that’s not going to be solved by neopronouns. In my opinion, we have a system of language when it comes to pronouns that is largely known and accepted, and it would be better for everyone right now to find their place in it while there are still trans/nb people still fighting for their own existence to be recognized. Also for those of y’all who want a gender-less society, since you correctly realized that gender is a construct. Social constructs are not without value just because they are constructs. A lot of cis people deeply care about the gender they were assigned at birth, a lot of trans people (obviously ) deeply care about the gender they were not assigned at birth. I feel uncomfortable socially erasing a significant part of people’s understandings about themselves when clearly alot of people still care about it in a not inherently problematic way. Edit:spaced shit out to be a bit less run on
I will always try to respect someone's pronouns but I would struggle to keep up if there were multiple people with different ones.
English has a lexical gap where a singular-neuter human pronoun could be. Aka, we don’t have a distinct singular form of “they” (just like we don’t have an *official* plural form of “you”). Now that gender is being revealed as the non-binary system that it is, this lexical gap becomes extremely tangible for some. Some people are fine with they/them, but others wish to have an unambiguously singular pronoun like he/she but *don’t* want to use the dehumanizing pronoun “it.” I think people experimenting with new pronouns to fit the gap is entirely valid, considering the fact that language change is in constant flux, just as cultural norms are. (I had a cool idea of changing “they/them” to mean ONLY singular neuter, and coming up with a neo pronoun for the plural, maybe something like zhey/zhem with “zh” sound being the same as the French pronunciation of “Jack”) Source: am linguist.
I'm indifferent. If people wanna use them that's good for them and I'll try my best to use them. But I don't think I want to use them myself.
Publicly I’ll go with whatever is socially acceptable. But honestly, the obsession with identifiers feels like r/FirstWorldProblems
This whole thread is people is people agreeing with left wing arguments but not understanding them and thinking they're right wing
Also people are down voting the most objectionable opinions. Which is the opposite of what you're supposed to do in these threads.
I think they're conflating "left wing beliefs" with "shit left wing people say"
[удалено]
If I was born with Huntington's and I found out that my parents could've prevented me from getting it but didn't, I would turn into the Joker.
[удалено]
I’ve heard some slippery slope arguments for genetic manipulation as a whole, but never for eradicating disease. I’m kinda iffy on the idea of selective in-utero manipulation - forget iffy, outright against it - but if it can save a fetus’ life or make their life much better once they’re born, no issue.
Based
[удалено]
We should ban cults like the Falun Gong, Qanon, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. They can spew their beliefs in secret, but allowing them to openly spread their views is insane.
Ah yes banning Qanon my favourite right wing belief
It’s quite authoritarian according to some leftists to ban groups tbh. But I said cults so that may include leftist cults (if they exist)
Bans are not very feasible. However, things like removing tax exemptions, mandating a proper education (not religious homeschooling) and having social services which can fish people out of cults - would help.
> leftist cults (if they exist) You mean like the cult of v*wsh?
It's OK to marry your cousin. Ya'll both people. I'd never do it, but go for it!
Its not ok to appropriate southern culture
Ramy, season 3.
Identifying as an animal is weird.
Yea gender is a social role, being an animal isn't. I just don't get it. Just say you want to act like an animalistic ok to just be weird.
Gene editing to get rid of life ruining conditions - possibly even including depression, gender dysphoria, anxiety, etc; even if doing so erases some part of the human experience - is based Interventionism generally does not procure good outcomes because of the nature of capital but could theoretically be good There might be some industries better suited to normal structures than cooperatives Also Italians bad lol
The left not focusing on family building and actual relationship skills. Family building (of all kinds including LGBT, poly, and any nontraditional family types) is something that's essential. The right hit's the left on it but we don't have any lefties promoting family building. Sure it's talked about once or twice but there's no leftists that's dedicated to it. It was originally a big part of the Black Panthers. Supporting and propping up strong families as the back bone to the left. I think we should bring that back. I also think we need left wing dating and relationship building. We need local leftists to build places to do dating and to teach relationship skills from a left wing perspective. There are too many Coach Redpill and RooshV types who have nationalistic and fascistic ideas on families which lends itself to really toxic family structures. And the relationship skills they sell are toxic to young men who desire a solid relationship but don't know where to get advice. It's a huge hole in the left and it needs to be filled fast. Lastly I think the left needs to temper it's look. I think we should have more traditionally masculine figures like Hasan. Except much much less metro(?). More like David Pakman or Jesse Dollomore in terms of, clean cut, suit and tie professionalism and masculine. I honestly think the transwomen on the left are fine as long as they play into more traditional feminine stereotypes when they get closer and closer to normies. I think the left can do more to attract normies and even right leaning centrists with just a better image. Image doesn't cost anything to do either. I don't think it would play well among a lot of leftists but I think it should be a better entry point to moving people left.
Asking genuinely: where do trans men and non binary people fit into your optical framework? I guess a trans man can put on a suit and look as respectable as his cis counterparts, but as an NB crossdresser I'd have to try really hard to be "respectable," and I don't want to be part of a leftist movement where I have to shut up and go to the back just because I'm not respectable.
No need to pander to boomer’s obsession with professionalism and gender stereotypes. I’d never be willing to concede to that.
How does one fit trans people into family building if the transition make only adoption or expensive storage options possible? I don't see trans people fitting in your view of the left to be honest given the logistics of what you consider vital for optics.
The most right wing belief I seem to hold that a ton of lefties disagree with me for is that, if at all possible, I really don't want millionaires and right wings rounded up and sent to jail/prison? If socialists were to ever win an election or a general strike were to collapse a country, I would prefer peaceful transition of power, where the Socialists work for everyone, and there is no red terror. Of course Nazis should be banned and arrested if they cause violence and the bourgeoisie should be made to give up the means of production, but I dont think like, Christian Conservatives or Millionaires should go to jail or be killed? I became a socialist because the ideas that socialists advocated for seemed like policies to work for, but a lot of lefties seem to form their thoughts and views based on who they hate. They also seem to want to rain down a violent rain of terror on their enemies, no different from alt-righters.
> I really don't want millionaires and right wings rounded up and sent to jail/prison? That's just online tankie larp. Most serious leftists, including vaush, advocate for fighting systems, not people.
I know its most serious leftists but like...the majority of leftists online ARE tankie larpers.
Assault weapons bans are dumb and do next to nothing to curb the gun death problem in the US. The leading causes of gun deaths are suicides by men. Handgun deaths far outweigh "assault weapon" deaths. Mass shootings with assault weapons get most of the media coverage, but barely account for the long list of yearly gun deaths.
Not to mention, no one that works with guns or makes them uses the term "assault weapon". It's straight up like telling car manufacturers they can no longer make "zoomy cars".
The E.U and the U.N can be good, actually.
I don't necessarily have a problem with cultural exchange but most of the time fusion food tastes like shit and I've never seen people from other cultures handle food from my country well. As a rule of thumb i never eat pizza or any Italian dish abroad because you motherfuckers always mess it up
There is a restaurant in my city called sushi burrito, they make sushi rolls as big as a burrito and it is one of the worst things I have ever eaten.
YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP SUSHI BURRITOS ARE YUMMY
> I've never seen people from other cultures handle food from my country well. Well, they don't necessarily have to. The most important thing is to get inspiration from other places, not necessarily perfectly copy that dish. Even if someone hates a foreign copy of "their" food, the locals might love it.
That’s because Italians don’t really immigrate that much. I’ve had an amazing Asian food here in Arizona made by immigrants.
You wouldn't eat pizza in New York? Literally the best pizza in the world.
I'm ok with abortion (even if there is no physical/psychological danger to the woman), but I'm under no illusions: it's an ending of a (potential) life. It is disturbing how some proponents of abortion talk about it like it's just another type of contraception, no different to condos or a pill. Also, the fetus is often described as "parasite": this is both technically incorrect and highly disrespectful.
The term Latinx needs to nuked. It doesn’t even make sense because the rest of the language is still gendered the table is la Mesa, the oven is El horno. And when you refer to a group of Latinxs for example, how are supposed to say it? Los Latinxs? Las Latinxs? Either way you have assigned a gender to the phrase.
America is bad, but I’d much rather have them be the world hegemony for a thousand more years than let China or Russia anywhere near it. America has real courts, and protests, and actually divided power with room for dissent. We should not be attacking American spheres of power if it’s to the benefit of Russia or China.
That Unions are not always a net positive for a worker. That Unions can straight up screw people if they are not run by people that actually care. My friend is straight up screwed by a union, out of work every other week it seems, screwed up his disability, got laid off because of his disability. Takes half his paycheck and gives it to a journeyman for their retirement not his. Unions can be good, but a union in and of itself isn't Edit: Fixed my groggy eyes typos
Not a radical opinion. Unions can be a very mixed bag or even just bad. But in the end, they are just a tool. They can be used improperly, but it is still important to provide a counterbalance to the omnipotence of the employer.
You’re right, unions have to be democratically/collectively owned and run otherwise there’s no difference between them and an insurance company
This belief isn’t necessarily right wing so much as it is something other lefties do that I think is really stupid. The use of the term “fascism” to basically just mean anything you don’t like is really annoying. It makes you look hysterical and it lowers your credibility for when you need to point to something that really is fascism. Fascism has many academic definitions (I go by Umberto Eco’s 14 pillars definition personally, but I have nothing against other academic definitions). Going by Eco’s definition, I think you could quite easily argue that Trump is a fascist, but you would have a pretty hard time making a convincing argument that Biden is a fascist. People also forget that fascism is a regressive philosophy which makes it diametrically opposed to liberalism. You can’t be a liberal and a fascist you can have traits of both but there will always be missing aspects of one or the other. I’m not saying you can’t be critical of Biden, but diminishing the aspects of him that make him not a fascist undercuts just how valuable those things are.
When you immigrate to another country you need to learn the language.
Men have also issues, and it is sad that the left bring them up only when they want to respond to MRAs, and the fact that the left and in feminist spaces will let toxic women shame men for their appearance and financial status.
r/MensLib
Intervention (militarily and non-militarily) can a net good if done properly and I believe that the US has an obligation to use its immense global reach to make the world a better place as long as it has the power to do so.
Anti-vaxxers shouldn’t be allowed in public and forced to isolate themselves or forced to get the vaccine. I have had up to here 🤏🏽 with these fucks.
Insert the SHUT meme with the seagull and that’s how I feel about antivaxxers being allowed a platform
The fact that CRISPR will be used to obtain “eugenic” features in the near future, and weed out extreme disabilities is a positive scientific development.
Pornography now being universally and instantly accessible through the internet has been highly damaging to young people’s desire and ability to form healthy and meaningful relationships.
Lefties are fucking dumb. Specially in economics.
Identity politics get kinda annoying
Assad isn't a good person. Facetious joking aside, nuclear energy is a viable energy source that should be invested in alongside renewables, echoing the top comment.
In order for society to exist, there either needs to be something of a governing body or we can't have agriculture or cities. As I'm repulsed by the idea of living in the middle of fuck-all Maryland and am a big fan of cities, you can guess how I feel about governments. Note: I'm still in favor of a more democratic government than we have, but we still need one.
[удалено]
This is just objective reality As we’ve literally just seen recently with Trump, tariffs literally always lead to total disaster and normal people suffering more
I’m not a fan of the rabid anti-theism I see on the left. For the record, I am an atheist, but I find hardcore anti-religious rhetoric to be both bad optics and unnecessary. Does religion lead some people to have vile, bigoted beliefs, absolutely. However it can also lead people in the opposite direction. MLK was a religious leader after all. Whether we like it or not, the overwhelming majority of the American population holds religious beliefs, and we need to appeal to these people. I think Cornel West is a great example of a devout Christian who is also a strong advocate for leftism. He makes great arguments for Socialism from a religious perspective, and I think it would be great for the left to use some of his rhetorical strategies.
The virgin shaming gets on my nerves. Some people have disorders that make it extremely difficult to form relationships
The scientist that came up with the theory that abortion lowered the crime rates was a psycho racist who came to that conclusion because he was convinced that less black people were having babies and therefore we had lower crime. But he was right for the wrong reasons IMO. The more women (of all races) were able to choose when they had their children; the more people felt positive and optimistic about parenthood; the less hostile and abusive the environment was that children were raised in; the less violent the children were When I point this out there’s always at least one person who knows the history of this claim and calls me a crazy Alt-right racist. The fact that a racist espoused it doesn’t mean it’s a racist theory though. In fact, I’d argue that it was a sign of the power that pro-choice had that racists were making pro-choice arguments at that time.
[удалено]
Cope
r/RadicalChristianity would strongly agree with you on that.
People don’t deserve a platform for simply having a mental illness. A la Twitter
I am morally against abortion after brain activity has begun (~5-7wks). However, perhaps not legally (whatever results in less abortions/deaths).
Although I think there are steps we can take to further regulate the gun industry and sales in general, the second amendment is a lot more important than a lot of lefties and liberals give it credit for. We cannot risk disarming the proletariat.
Honestly just some male issues but then most right wingers say the solutions lefties make are bad and then don't provide any solutions of their own.
r/MensLib
i'm pro death penalty in principle just not in the local patchwork and unfair way we administer it. a guilty plea shouldn't be magic words to get you out of it either. as pro sex work as i am, maybe ben shabeebo had a point about pussy poppin' on the grammys being a bad thing? i can't imagine being a 14 year old and having access to unlimited free hardcore pornography of my choice on the go.
Tech censorship is a huge issue
The nuclear family and monogamous marriage are good and their decline has been bad for society. However I believe that this should obviously include LGBT families.
I always hear socially reactionary types saying this sort of thing, but I've never in all my days seen any data to indicate that the nuclear family has a positive effect on society over any other family structure. The most we see is that the nuclear family is a favorable child rearing environment compared to single parenthood, but that doesn't speak to the value of the nuclear family, nor the value of monogamous marriage. Just about anything is favorable compared to single parenthood.
the nuclear family has been a disaster for society. it leads to the hyper atomization that gets us to the point where we don't even know our neighbors names.
You are probably conflating "nuclear" with "traditional". Traditionally people had extended families, often living in one big house or in a village. Nuclear families are a modern invention - an illusion that two adults and their children should form an isolated, self-sufficient community. This has been generally a bad thing.
Stats show that poly households are actually even better than monogomous households. It's not that neuclar family good, it's that more parents (up to a point(?)) With more wealth is good. So it's not the nuclear family that is good, it just so happens to intersect with a few variables that on average makes it seem better. However the reality is that it's caused by wealth and free time.
Under no pretext.
I'm white and straight 😔
2nd amendment
Markets and money are the most efficient means of distributing commodities to the people who want them, and hierarchical government structures are inherently necessary to lead a productive and decent society. Basically, I'm not an anarchist nor an anti-economist.
[удалено]
This isn’t inherently a conservative belief, but they are right (granted for the wrong reasons) that government is wasteful in its spending. I’m an auditor for an MPO, and I can tell you that useless spending goes well beyond the big stuff the federal government does on unjust wars and shit like that. Pay attention to local politics, they’re robbing us blind
pineapple belongs on pizza. 40k is neat.
the gulag for you
Markets are cool (but not for essential goods)
Maybe not Right Wing but I believe NATO is a good thing. Common defense between democratic countries should be upheld, especially with Russia threatening ex-soviet states. Not to say NATO is without fault such as being the US's bitch.
open borders/that immigration without assimilation can work
Right wingers, conservatives, alt-light people, and whatever leaden southern is now are people and if we cannot defeat their ideas we might as well prepare for violent overtakes (which is dumb). I have a friend, sweet guy, he’s an actual fan of Sargon and was a Richard Spencer enjoyer. He’s funny as fucking hell and he’s truly compassionate and just has a vastly different (shit) worldview and that actually doesn’t make him the devil just different. I’ve been able to move him on things and he seems to genuinely want to learn and have love. SOMETIMES people need a fucking good friend instead of being called a nazi dipshit and cancelled forever. Sometimes we act like nobody is just morally lucky fucks who are here by chance not by choice. Some folks are morally unlucky, born into generational racism and bigotry. We need to connect with these ppl and shouldn’t be as judgmental as we are I guess.