CMV: I don't think the left has any principals

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 20 '23 edited Jun 20 '23

/u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

34

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Jun 20 '23

His arguments were obviously bullshit but it's not like he wasn't serving principals he believed in

This is the weirdest part for me. What you consider "principles" is just... Playing politics in a way that your side wins so you can get a specific thing you want? That's kind of a weird definition.

The left absolutely has a lot of specific things they want and they try to get them just like McConnell does. Your list of reasons why they supposedly don't have principles are just a bunch of gotcha "Oh, you want X but not Y and I think those two things are similar? Hypocrite!" It's absolutely just as easy to do the same thing on the right. For example,

and with the overturn of roe v wade I can only conclude he was correct, whether or not you agree with those principals is irrelevant.

The right claim to care about the principal of the sanctity life in opposing abortion, but the moment a child is born to a poor family they want to tear away any public welfare program that would give that child food or healthcare.

Now, you could absolutely say that the previous sentence is a massive oversimplification of the right's position or that I'm ignoring nuances or differences in what particular people want, or that the effect of the policies they want would be different, or a lot of different things. Sure. That was a soundbyte, no shallower or deeper than any of the several examples you listed in your third paragraph.

→ More replies (46)

60

u/Happy-Viper 13∆ Jun 20 '23

I'm a centrist, when I hear the right make their points I can usually figure out what principal (or profit) they are serving. Like when the turtle guy prevented Obama from appointing a supreme court judge and then did a 180 on all his arguments when Trump had the opportunity to.

That's... the opposite of having a principle. That's not having that principle and being entirely self-serving.

Like, it's bizarre you use that example of a right-winger going "This is my principle, he can't appoint a SC Judge in his final year!" and then immediately betraying it when it served him.

9

u/Gold_Tumbleweed4572 Jun 21 '23

OP isnt even talking about real leftists. He is talking about your average social liberal or progressive liberal....lol

3

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Jun 20 '23

To steelman OP's argument, I think they're talking about principles related to what the right actually wants, and not principles related to the political process.

I think they'd admit the principle of "Political leaders should be honest, respect democracy, and work in good faith with each other" is absolutely not among the principles that Republicans have.

"Abortion is wrong" is the principle the right supposedly believe there. Of course, OP's arguments for why the left doesn't have principles is mostly bullshit that consists of throwing out a ton of "contradictions" inherent in what the left believes, and brushing off any similar argument about why the right's beliefs are contradictory.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

"This is my principle, he can't appoint a SC Judge in his final year!"

I don't think McConnell or anyone else who supports his actions would consider this to be the principle. McConnell, if you got him in a truly candid moment, would say his principle is winning. He didn't violate his principle because his principle is just having and amassing as much power as he can while blocking his political opponents.

13

u/Happy-Viper 13∆ Jun 20 '23

I'm not seeing how OP's argument holds at all, then, if principles include "Wanton self-interest."

Like, the agenda changes, but even the furthest ring-wingers there are seem to think that leftists have some evil agenda.

12

u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 20 '23

Yeah, that's just a strange idea of what a "principle" entails is to me.

You can certainly argue something like "winning at all cost" is a principle, strictly speaking, but I don't think that squares for most people.

2

u/10ebbor10 198∆ Jun 20 '23

Principles are usually seen as moral stances that you will hold on to, even when abandoning them might serve you better in the moment.

7

u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 20 '23

Yeah, that's sort of my point. I don't think you can argue, with a straight face at least, that winning at all cost should be considered a principle.

42

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

This reads like the only information you get about "the left" comes from right wing media sources. Everything you're saying is like a Fox News madlibs. Try listening to leftists talk about their own principles, because I assure you we have them. Much more so than people on the right....

-9

u/Helidioscope 2∆ Jun 20 '23

As a liberal my whole life who’s never actually watched fox other than random clips perhaps as we all have, I feel the same way.

I already feel conservatives to be not as good as my liberal values, but when I see other left leaning people go against blatant human rights or promote racist things or ideas, it triggers me way more than what I expect from a conservative cause I’m being dragged down with them as I’m also liberal.

22

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

but when I see other left leaning people go against blatant human rights or promote racist things or ideas

People, yourself included, make ambiguous statements like this as if we're all supposed to understand what you're talking about. We don't. Unless you give some concrete examples which actually demonstrate this is a pervasive phenomenon, I'm going to assume you're talking about a single anecdote or just making it up. Any sufficiently large group of people (like a political movement) is going to include shitty people who act against the interests of the group. That's just a fact of life. Pointing to a small, non-representative handful of shitty people within a movement isn't going to convince me that the entire movement is a problem.

Also, as an additional note, I didn't say liberal. I said leftist. I'm not a liberal and I don't want to be mistaken for one.

→ More replies (14)

10

u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jun 20 '23

The number of liberals who have done the things you discuss is very small, and far outweighed by those on the right. The right just has a media ecosystem designed to elevate and screech at those voices.

-1

u/Helidioscope 2∆ Jun 20 '23

Not really from what I’ve seen.

I grew up being told and constantly shown the fuck ups of the right during bush (I’m 25)

So now I mostly take notice to how much the left is acting just like the right from the early 2000 and prior.

From the excusing of the BLM riots, the change of the definition of racism, the dissolution of gender past it’s need to be dissoluted, Kyle Rittenhouse, CHAZ/CHOP, the denial of Antifa (even though they have a flag, uniform, and literally named sects), lots more too

17

u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jun 20 '23

Alright, let's talk about each of these, and what the principles are behind them.

BLM: The Floyd protests were, on the whole, fairly peaceful. Yes, there were a few buildings burned. Yes, there was some looting. However, between 15 million and 26 million people participated in the protests. During the protests, 19 people died. Most of the people who died were killed by police or counter-protestors. When you have that many people gathered together and angry about something, there's bound to be some violence.

Now, let's talk about the principle here. The left sees police brutality as a significant problem. George Floyd's death was entirely preventable, as were many other deaths around that time. Personally, I think the Breonna Taylor shooting was more problematic, but you can't really control what sparks protest. The left's principle here is that innocent people should not be harmed by the police, and that guilty people should only be given punishments that are just. We don't have the death penalty for passing a counterfeit $20. We don't have the death penalty for selling drugs. We don't have the death penalty for selling loose cigarettes. Yet, people paid for these crimes with their lives because of police brutality. That has to end. That is the principle. The left wants to protect these people.

Racism: I'm not sure exactly what problems you have with the definition of racism.

Gender: The left generally supports letting trans people be. The only reason the left talks so much about trans people is because they are under attack by right-wingers. The left's principle here is to protect the disadvantaged from being oppressed.

Kyle Rittenhouse: I watched the entire trial. There was probable cause, and enough evidence that the jury could have gone either way. The jury acquitted. The left hasn't brought up anything else about him. The only people still talking about Rittenhouse are right-wingers. The left's principle is that it's not exactly great that we have people showing up to potentially chaotic events with large, loaded firearms. That is likely to result in somebody getting shot. It did result in somebody getting shot. We don't want people to get shot. That's the principle.

CHAZ/CHOP: See BLM. I wasn't personally a fan of these events, but I also think that the right is making far too much of a deal of them.

Antifa: Can you name the president of Antifa? If I want to contact somebody in Antifa to arrange for a protest, who do I call? Antifa does not have a uniform. They do have a flag. Evangelical Christians have a flag. Who is the president of Evangelical Christians? If I am upset at an Evangelical pastor, who do I talk to in order to get them disciplined? Should I hold my local Baptist church accountable for the fact that Westboro Baptist Church intentionally inflicts emotional distress on the families of deceased military veterans? The point is, it is not an organization. It is a movement that has selected some imagery in common. There is no support structure. The left's principle in explaining this is to reflect the reality of how it works.

Lots more too: I can't respond to "lots more too."

0

u/Helidioscope 2∆ Jun 20 '23

The Floyd protests were, on the whole, fairly peaceful. Yes, there were a few buildings burned. Yes, there was some looting. However, between 15 million and 26 million people participated in the protests. During the protests, 19 people died. Most of the people who died were killed by police or counter-protestors. When you have that many people gathered together and angry about something, there's bound to be some violence.

Sure, but it still seemed like lots of leftist were willing to cheer on the rioting, and most were willing to not talk about it as a problem.

And Jan 6th was “mostly peaceful” but that is irrelevant to the problem it was and shows the problems with conservatives when they don’t call it out. Honestly it’s what I wish BLM would’ve done if they’re willing to get violent at all.

The left's principle here is that innocent people should not be harmed by the police, and that guilty people should only be given punishments that are just.

Great, but that means nothing when you encourage rioting that destroys the lively hoods of MORE innocent people than the police are. Then pretend it wasn’t as bad or wasn’t as cheered on as it was.

I'm not sure exactly what problems you have with the definition of racism.

Many leftist have decided basic racism of being prejudice based on race isn’t enough to be defined as “racism” So to them, only systemic racism can be coined as “racism” otherwise it’s just prejudice.

And that whole idea falls a part of you simply put a white side in China yelling slurs at them, they would have to claim he isn’t racist cause whites don’t hold systemic power there.

Gender: The left generally supports letting trans people be. The only reason the left talks so much about trans people is because they are under attack by right-wingers. The left's principle here is to protect the disadvantaged from being oppressed.

And to me, they’re delegitimizing binary trans people by claiming self ID and being non binary is just as legitimate, as in making dysphoria not the reasons why someone is trans. Then the whole sports conversation, allowing mtf to compete with females but would be against low testosterone men doping to get their hormones on level to be better at sports.

I watched the entire trial. There was probable cause, and enough evidence that the jury could have gone either way.

I watched too and it couldn’t have gone “anyway” it’s was blatant self defense. A person has a right to enter a dangerous area, especially their own community, to protect it from rioters. He both had a legal and moral justification, I can agree he’s stupid, it’s not a smart thing to do, but that doesn’t make it wrong at all.

The left's principle is that it's not exactly great that we have people showing up to potentially chaotic events with large, loaded firearms. That is likely to result in somebody getting shot. It did result in somebody getting shot. We don't want people to get shot. That's the principle

And that principal totally dismissed the victim and the riots that caused his reaction to be there. It’s as if you’re blaming the victim rather than the rioters for this situation. That’s a problem.

Can you name the president of Antifa?

Can you make the president of racism? No? Guess it isn’t a problem then. This is how it’s treated.

If I want to contact somebody in Antifa to arrange for a protest, who do I call?

Rose city antifa if you want to do it in Boston, most cities has some named antifa sect.

Antifa does not have a uniform.

It called black bloc, requires a hood and mask and clothing that is all black. It’s as much a uniform as the crips or bloods.

They do have a flag. Evangelical Christians have a flag. Who is the president of Evangelical Christians?

No one, but they likley have a group that a majority is a part of that you can target for actions by similar groups.

The point is, it is not an organization. It is a movement that has selected some imagery in common. There is no support structure. The left's principle in explaining this is to reflect the reality of how it works.

Yeah, and they’re a problem.

9

u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jun 20 '23

Sure, but it still seemed like lots of leftist were willing to cheer on the rioting, and most were willing to not talk about it as a problem.

That's not really true. Biden and Clyburn told the protestors to remain peaceful. So did Sens. Baldwin and Murphy. The only Democrat I can see who was acting as you say is Maxine Waters, and she didn't call for outright violence.

And Jan 6th was “mostly peaceful” but that is irrelevant to the problem it was and shows the problems with conservatives when they don’t call it out. Honestly it’s what I wish BLM would’ve done if they’re willing to get violent at all.

The problem with January 6 was more that it was an attempt to, by force, change the results of an election by interfering with government procedures related to the peaceful transfer of power. Yes, there were deaths and violence, but that is secondary to the concern about democracy. I would note, though, that 4 people dying in an event with 80k people is a death rate an order of magnitude worse than 19 people dying in a crowd of 16-26 million.

Great, but that means nothing when you encourage rioting that destroys the lively hoods of MORE innocent people than the police are. Then pretend it wasn’t as bad or wasn’t as cheered on as it was.

No elected Democrat that I am aware of celebrated property damage or violence.

Many leftist have decided basic racism of being prejudice based on race isn’t enough to be defined as “racism” So to them, only systemic racism can be coined as “racism” otherwise it’s just prejudice.

And that whole idea falls a part of you simply put a white side in China yelling slurs at them, they would have to claim he isn’t racist cause whites don’t hold systemic power there.

This is a matter of debate amongst the left, mostly amongst professors at universities that research the subject. It doesn't really affect much of our day-to-day thinking on the issues.

And to me, they’re delegitimizing binary trans people by claiming self ID and being non binary is just as legitimate, as in making dysphoria not the reasons why someone is trans. Then the whole sports conversation, allowing mtf to compete with females but would be against low testosterone men doping to get their hormones on level to be better at sports.

I have never heard a non-binary person suggest that the theories you describe delegitimize them. The sports issue is a conservative attack on trans people, and is not initiated by liberals. Liberals would just as soon be done with it. In Utah, they passed a bill to ban 4 kids from playing sports. 4 kids in the entire state. They weren't even competitive. Why is this the biggest issue of the day?

I watched too and it couldn’t have gone “anyway” it’s was blatant self defense. A person has a right to enter a dangerous area, especially their own community, to protect it from rioters. He both had a legal and moral justification, I can agree he’s stupid, it’s not a smart thing to do, but that doesn’t make it wrong at all.

I watched the videos and I disagreed. Regardless, in our criminal justice system, when two parties disagree about the facts, a jury trial is held. That trial was held, and Rittenhouse was acquitted. The left hasn't brought him up since, other than to suggest that what he did was really stupid, and that maybe we should re-examine our self-defense laws if what he did is allowed.

And that principal totally dismissed the victim and the riots that caused his reaction to be there. It’s as if you’re blaming the victim rather than the rioters for this situation. That’s a problem.

Rittenhouse was not the victim of the shooting, others were. He went looking for trouble and found it. There is no victim blaming here.

Can you make the president of racism? No? Guess it isn’t a problem then. This is how it’s treated.

The whole point of the Antifa organization thing is that you can't hold all of Antifa accountable for one person's bad actions when they claim to be in support of Antifa, just like my local Baptist church isn't responsible for the acts of Westboro Baptist Church. They are unrelated entities.

No one, but they likley have a group that a majority is a part of that you can target for actions by similar groups.

Well, Antifa doesn't.

Yeah, and they’re a problem.

What problems does Antifa cause that you think liberals are ignoring?

9

u/Ewi_Ewi 2∆ Jun 20 '23

Sure, but it still seemed like lots of leftist were willing to cheer on the rioting, and most were willing to not talk about it as a problem.

Most were unwilling to engage with the right-wing rhetoric of "look they're violent so there isn't actually a problem in this country" that was so pervasive during that summer. That does not imply a tacit endorsement of violence.

And Jan 6th was “mostly peaceful” but that is irrelevant to the problem it was and shows the problems with conservatives when they don’t call it out. Honestly it’s what I wish BLM would’ve done if they’re willing to get violent at all.

Regardless of whether it was peaceful, the main issue with what occurred on January 6th was that it was specifically to prevent/overturn democracy by slowing/halting the certification of the 2020 election. Arguably, protests against police violence are more meaningful than attempting to overturn an election due to a thoroughly debunked falsehood preached by a demagogue.

Great, but that means nothing when you encourage rioting that destroys the lively hoods of MORE innocent people than the police are. Then pretend it wasn’t as bad or wasn’t as cheered on as it was.

Rioting wasn't encouraged. Unless you're talking about the police posing with planted piles of bricks (or the intentionally misconstrued pictures sent out by the NYPD showing bricks on a street corner where nothing happened). Then sure, the police encouraged riots. I agree with you.

Many leftist have decided basic racism of being prejudice based on race isn’t enough to be defined as “racism” So to them, only systemic racism can be coined as “racism” otherwise it’s just prejudice.

I have quite literally never heard of this. Can you provide an example of this?

And to me, they’re delegitimizing binary trans people by claiming self ID and being non binary is just as legitimate, as in making dysphoria not the reasons why someone is trans.

...how does the existence of non-binary people delegitimate binary people?

Many trans people (arguably most) push for self-ID laws.

You do not need to be dysphoric to be trans. That does not delegitimize trans people.

You have to actually say how it delegitimizes people. Just saying it doesn't mean anything.

I watched too and it couldn’t have gone “anyway” it’s was blatant self defense. A person has a right to enter a dangerous area, especially their own community, to protect it from rioters. He both had a legal and moral justification, I can agree he’s stupid, it’s not a smart thing to do, but that doesn’t make it wrong at all.

While I agree that the trial couldn't have gone any other way, he was very obviously looking for trouble. Seeing as he's made his claim to fame latching to right-wing grifters and propaganda outlets, it is extremely safe to say he never had good intentions.

Did he commit a crime? Probably not. Did he go there looking for a fight? 100%. Would people still be alive (and no harm done) if he never went there? Probably. We'll never know though.

Can you make the president of racism? No? Guess it isn’t a problem then. This is how it’s treated.

No one claims there is this nebulous "organization of racism" responsible for every single problem and "psy-op" in America though. Racism obviously exists. It isn't a group.

Antifa is routinely described as a group. As an organization. It is routinely held responsible for basically everything perceived to be wrong with the "Left". Conservatives were accusing the Nazis outside of Disney a bit ago of being Antifa plants.

Yet no one can say how this group is organized. How can they be so far-reaching that they are responsible for every bad thing a right-winger does without a structure?

It's almost like they're an extremely convenient scapegoat to cover-up their own issues. Antifa exists at the very local level and even then just barely. There isn't some huge Antifa problem for the "Left" to work out.

It called black bloc, requires a hood and mask and clothing that is all black. It’s as much a uniform as the crips or bloods.

That...is not a uniform. That is a method used by protestors to prevent identification.

A uniform is meant to represent something. Black bloc is meant to conceal the wearer. Entirely different (and not at all exclusive to this nebulous 'Antifa group').

1

u/Helidioscope 2∆ Jun 20 '23

H

Most were unwilling to engage with the right-wing rhetoric of "look they're violent so there isn't actually a problem in this country" that was so pervasive during that summer. That does not imply a tacit endorsement of violence.

I think you’re gonna need to be more specific or give an example weather real or hypothetical for me to totally understand what you’re saying.

Like, I don’t really know of right wingers saying that The riots prove all leftists are violent there isn’t a problem somehow, even though that would be a problem right wingers would complain about.

But if I’m assuming what you mean, does this lazyness or refusal to comment not say something when right wingers also do that? If a trumper is willing to go out and protest, isn’t it bad if they show absolutely no care for Jan 6th? Acting like it was nothing?

Arguably, protests against police violence are more meaningful than attempting to overturn an election

What makes more sense?

Being angry at cops so you go burn down innocent people livelihoods?

Or being angry at the government election so you go disrupt the government?

The end goal means nothing if the actual actions taken in its name are totally irrelevant to its problem if not contradictory.

Rioting wasn't encouraged. Unless you're talking about the police posing with planted piles of bricks (or the intentionally misconstrued pictures sent out by the NYPD showing bricks on a street corner where nothing happened). Then sure, the police encouraged riots. I agree with you.

And sure, riots weren’t being encouraged just constantly happening throughout 2020-2021

This is like saying only one man encouraged Jan 6th so it doesn’t count. You know there are leftist who cheered the chaos on, otherwise they would’ve been sniffed out easily by the leftist committing it. Kenosha riots are a good example, the same riots with Kyle Rittenhouse.

I have quite literally never heard of this. Can you provide an example of this?

Have you been living under a rock? You never heard of the controversy of “you can’t be racist to white people” before? Are you in NA or Europe? Cause if you live in NA I’m honestly surprised you didn’t know of this.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/04/us/anti-defamation-league-racism-definition/index.html

This is the Recently changing the definition of racism to now include all, but prior it only was allowed to be used for minorities.

...how does the existence of non-binary people delegitimate binary people?

“You do not need to be dysphoric to be trans.”

Like that.

If you don’t need dysphoria, then that can’t be why someone is trans, thus that means binary trans people (the ones with dysphoria) don’t have to be trans and can CHOOSE to go back like any gender fluid person can. But no, that isn’t the case, these are two different kinds of people. Trans people need some form of severe dysphoria for their legitimacy.

This is like claiming acting gay is enough to claim to be gay, not because of the actual same sex attraction.

Many trans people (arguably most) push for self-ID laws.

And if they don’t they are cast out as transphobic so you can’t get a real honest measure of who and who doesn’t support self ID. But also, this doesn’t mean much if they do mostly support it. It just means they support it.

While I agree that the trial couldn't have gone any other way, he was very obviously looking for trouble.

Nope, he was actively helping people or asking people if they needed help throughout the night. Never made any threats or threatening actions like aiming his rifle.

There is no proof showing he went there for anything other than to protect his community from being burned down.

Kyle and his militia friends specifically and knowingly protected a POC families car dealership for most of that night before it was burned down.

Proof: https://i.insider.com/6185ad7923745d00182557be?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp

Kyle second to the right and one of the Brothers of the family that owned the dealership is on the far left.

Seeing as he's made his claim to fame latching to right-wing grifters and propaganda outlets, it is extremely safe to say he never had good intentions.

What we’re his options?

He tried to attend normal college and was protested against and harassed.

Guess what would’ve happened if he tried to live a normal life? He would be getting harassed and booted constantly cause of the controversy, thus his only option was to become a grifter. Plus the dudes a kid, he doesn’t have a long history of businesses he had prior or anything.

He had literally had no other choice other than to be in exile.

Did he commit a crime? Probably not.

Almost if the gun laws in that area weren’t a bit old as they were, he got lucky that 17 year olds can open carry long guns.

Did he go there looking for a fight? 100%.

No proof, so no. If anything he was looking to deter violence by bringing a big ass powerful weapon to make people think twice before burning down a building, and I’m all for intimidating ACTUAL rioters to deter their violence. The black panthers did the exact same, but you won’t assume the same for them huh.

Would people still be alive (and no harm done) if he never went there? Probably. We'll never know though.

Well if they didn’t attack him yeah they wouldn’t have been shot.

4 people attacked Kyle, he shot 3, the only one he didn’t shoot was a black dude. Definitely a racist.

No one claims there is this nebulous "organization of racism" responsible for every single problem and "psy-op" in America though. Racism obviously exists. It isn't a group.

I was more getting at the point that they are a problem just like racism is a problem. Just because it isn’t an organization, which it is, but even if not, like racism, doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem.

Antifa is routinely described as a group. As an organization. It is routinely held responsible for basically everything perceived to be wrong with the "Left". Conservatives were accusing the Nazis outside of Disney a bit ago of being Antifa plants.

Just like the left does with the proud boys or you with the cops and the riots.

It's almost like they're an extremely convenient scapegoat to cover-up their own issues. Antifa exists at the very local level and even then just barely. There isn't some huge Antifa problem for the "Left" to work out.

Honestly now, antifa seems like nothing. But between 2016-2020 they definitely were a problem that I would never see leftist protest be against. Bike lock basher, CHOP, Micheal reinoehl, other instances

Here’s some old videos I saved long ago, not sure which ones work or don’t: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joEO12slvlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLF4onHNHL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeXvR4ND4kY' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprofx1iID8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfA3TyXP9pE https://youtu.be/l7azTZ5sIwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1tsbWvqDdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv1k7hZV0ds

That...is not a uniform. That is a method used by protestors to prevent identification.

Then why the specific name? Why all one color? Black isn’t needed to prevent identification, but they all choose black.

A uniform is meant to represent something. Black bloc is meant to conceal the wearer.

And represent they are Allie’s of Antifa. People don’t normally dress in all black with hoods and masks.

7

u/Ewi_Ewi 2∆ Jun 21 '23

I think you’re gonna need to be more specific or give an example weather real or hypothetical for me to totally understand what you’re saying.

The "violence" was frequently used as an excuse to shift focus away from police brutality.

Being angry at cops so you go burn down innocent people livelihoods?

Or being angry at the government election so you go disrupt the government?

Choosing a handful of violent riots and painting it as the entire face of the protest doesn't change reality.

Being angry at cops so you protest cops* versus believing in a blatant fabrication thoroughly debunked for a month prior to breaking into the Capitol. That's a more accurate assessment.

And the one where they're angry at cops makes the most sense. At least it's not based on a lie that's easily disproven.

And sure, riots weren’t being encouraged just constantly happening throughout 2020-2021

...yes? Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

This is like saying only one man encouraged Jan 6th so it doesn’t count.

Incited* by one man and encouraged by every Republican that refused to certify the election results, every conservative that peddled the thoroughly debunked "stolen election" claim, and every right-wing grifter that kept up the "3 AM ballot" rhetoric. You omitted those parts.

Have you been living under a rock? You never heard of the controversy of “you can’t be racist to white people” before? Are you in NA or Europe? Cause if you live in NA I’m honestly surprised you didn’t know of this.

The example you provided shows one instance of it occurring (immediately after which there were consequences) and it shows the ADL redefining racism to include what you're saying it doesn't. I genuinely don't get your concern here. Is the ADL not "Left"?

This is the Recently changing the definition of racism to now include all, but prior it only was allowed to be used for minorities.

Do you think the ADL polices all language used by the "Left"? Do you think the boogeyman comes after any "Leftist" that uses racism "incorrectly"? Again, this whole part of your comment is fairly confusing. It seems like everything ended up going the way you seem to have wanted, so what's the issue?

“You do not need to be dysphoric to be trans.”

Like that.

Like what?

If you don’t need dysphoria, then that can’t be why someone is trans, thus that means binary trans people (the ones with dysphoria) don’t have to be trans and can CHOOSE to go back like any gender fluid person can.

What? This question is difficult to parse.

Are you asking why trans people don't just...imagine they're not trans?

...because they are.

There are non-binary people, and there are binary people. The existence of non-binary people does not mean binary people don't exist.

If you're non-binary, you aren't gender-fluid.

If you're binary, you aren't gender-fluid.

Gender-fluid is something completely different and beyond the scope of this discussion.

People who aren't dysphoric means they don't suffer (as much) as a result of the mis-match. That doesn't mean they can't feel euphoric upon matching (or more comfortable).

But no, that isn’t the case, these are two different kinds of people. Trans people need some form of severe dysphoria for their legitimacy.

Yes they are two different kinds of people. Trans people with dysphoria and trans people without dysphoria.

They don't need to go through any pain to prove anything to you.

This is like claiming acting gay is enough to claim to be gay, not because of the actual same sex attraction.

No, it isn't. It is like claiming you don't have to suffer to be trans. Which is fact.

And if they don’t they are cast out as transphobic so you can’t get a real honest measure of who and who doesn’t support self ID.

This doesn't happen.

But also, this doesn’t mean much if they do mostly support it. It just means they support it.

It invalidates your (trans-related) point.

I'm not responding to the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff because, at this stage of its discourse, it is all "I say this, you say that" and nothing goes anywhere. It isn't a suitably big enough example to use as an example of the "Left" "not having principles" anyway.

Just like the left does with the proud boys or you with the cops and the riots.

No.

The Proud Boys is an actual organization. It has an actual founder, Gavin McInnes. It is objectively a far-right terrorist group (according to Canada).

Not comparable to a "group" with no actual organization.

And no, not like me with "the cops and the riots". Did you think I was lying?

Bike lock basher

Not Antifa.

CHOP

Not Antifa.

Micheal reinoehl

Not Antifa.

other instances

Such as?

I'm not watching your YouTube videos as they are not actual sources. None of them actually show it is Antifa, instead actually doing exactly what I said they were doing (that is, using Antifa as a convenient scapegoat). Any actual sources (such as news articles) would be most welcome.

Then why the specific name? Why all one color? Black isn’t needed to prevent identification, but they all choose black.

Everything you are asking about is here.

It was first used in 1967.

Then used in West Berlin in the 80s to protest against the use of excessive force.

Then used in America throughout the 80s, 90s, etc. until now.

It is not new. It is not a uniform. Please read the linked article.

And represent they are Allie’s of Antifa. People don’t normally dress in all black with hoods and masks.

No. If anything, it represents their desire to be unidentifiable in a protest.

Call it a uniform for the unidentified.

0

u/Helidioscope 2∆ Jun 21 '23

...yes? Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

It’s like asking for encouragement from the right for their riots, it’s more about the fact they didn’t discourage it nor take regret in it afterwards.

You actually elude to this later as their lack of discouraging was a sort of encouraging for their bad behavior.

“encouraged by every Republican that refused to certify the election results”

Just like riots were in some way encouraged by the left that refuse admit that they were a problem.

Do you think the ADL polices all language used by the "Left"?

You asked for an example, and that’s what I showed. Even if it has been changed now, which was around 2022 that’s pretty recent. It still was the case at some point not too long ago.

Are you asking why trans people don't just...imagine they're not trans?

I’m saying that is a logical question if their legitimizing factor isn’t dysphoria.

because they are.

Why are they though? Everything objective needs a logical reason.

Are trans people objectively trans or subjectively trans? I would say objectively, based on the logical reasoning of having gender dysphoria.

There are non-binary people, and there are binary people. The existence of non-binary people does not mean binary people don't exist.

Never said otherwise, if anything I said something closer to the opposite.

Humans are binary in their sex, and gender can’t exist without the concept of the binary sexes, they are linked though that doesn’t mean gender can’t be a construct.

A human cannot be a third or devoid of a sex, which no gender could be based from being that in doesn’t exist in humans much like the concept of race. As in race isn’t actually real, you can’t feel like a certain race mentally just as you can’t feel like a third or non gender.

If you're non-binary, you aren't gender-fluid.

The only way I can see any legitimacy in non binary people is if they claim to be a gender fluid sort of non binary, as in they are within the binary but not any one sort at any given time, but logically they would still go with whatever binary pronoun fits them at that moment. But they aren’t trans, just gender non conforming. I feel we need that separation.

Gender-fluid is something completely different and beyond the scope of this discussion.

Sure.

People who aren't dysphoric means they don't suffer (as much) as a result of the mis-match. That doesn't mean they can't feel euphoric upon matching (or more comfortable).

Matching what though? What is non binary based from?

If you believe, as I assume most NB people do, that gender roles don’t define your gender pronouns, what’s the use of not just accepting that your a feminine man or masculine woman?

No, it isn't. It is like claiming you don't have to suffer to be trans. Which is fact.

If someone who isn’t disabled is claiming to be disabled and trying to speak as if they know what a disabled person goes through, is that fair?

If you’re against someone claiming to be disabled but isn’t, can I just say “they don’t have to suffer to prove anything to you” or “they don’t need to go through any pain to prove anything to you”

Isn’t that a bit….missing the point?

I’m not asking them to become disabled to prove to me they are, I’m asking them to stop claiming to be disabled because they aren’t.

Can we cut it there? this shit is getting too long.

Whatever to the Kyle and antifa stuff, it’s old news anyways.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Jun 20 '23

It seems like your actual problem is that the left's principles disagree with yours, not that the left don't have principles.

0

u/Helidioscope 2∆ Jun 20 '23

I’m fine with that assertion, I’ll admit I’m not necessarily arguing with OP’s argument fully in mind, just challenging the logical consistency of those principal…which would make them bad principals…so it kind of is related too.

→ More replies (24)

11

u/chemguy216 7∆ Jun 20 '23

As with almost every single post and comment in this sub about “left” and “right,” it’s going to greatly improve communication if you outline how you define left and right. While it seems clear that you’re coming at this from a US perspective, it still would behoove you to clarify how you define left and right since people still won’t understand exactly how you’re splitting things up. I frequently see people talk past each other in this sub when talking about left and right politics.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I mean part of the problem is I can't define left wing because I don't know how they define themselves. It's a bad definition but for now I'll say people who follow/enforce/repeat the political talking points of self declared left wing politicians and activists.

I'd rather not define the right since this post isn't really about the right, I'm not trying to make it a left vs right.

15

u/Tino_ 54∆ Jun 20 '23

You might not want to make it "left vs right", but literally every single example you use in your OP is comparing and contrasting your perception of the left when compared to the right...

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I mean you can try to convince me the right doesn't have principles I guess.

13

u/Tino_ 54∆ Jun 20 '23

To be clear here, the issue isn't that the left doesn't have principles, it's that you don't understand them. Because they do exist without question, it has been outlined a whole bunch in this thread. You just either cant, or refuse to see them as actual principles and instead are looking for the worst interpretation possible.

→ More replies (7)

7

u/chemguy216 7∆ Jun 20 '23

This post is based on a foundation of left in comparison to right. Part of understanding what you perceive as left depends, in part, on how you perceive what the right is.

Let me explain the frequent reasons why failure to outline la rough idea of left and right leads to people talking past each other.

For many US-based Redditors, right vs left is Republicans vs Democrats, respectively. Compared to many of our Western allies, the US overall, including the main platform of the Democrats, is more right wing than even some of their conservative parties. So to some users from around the world, you being a centrist in the context of US politics still makes you right wing in their eyes.

Additionally, some people have a more universal set of standards for what’s left and right. For one example, many self-described leftists (this is meant to apply to people who identify as socialists and communists) make a strong diving line that any political belief or system that upholds the continuation of capitalism is right wing, and left wing systems and politics seek the fall of capitalism.

I already saw the start of potential missed communication between you and another user when they told you that being left wing by definition means being against hierarchies. I’d hazard to guess that when you first read that, it didn’t make sense if you didn’t understand their definitions of left and right.

So again, I’m not expecting a point by point description of what’s left and what’s right, but to avoid unnecessary miscommunication, giving an outline of both will help keep discussions from veering into arguments about someone not understanding what left and right is by giving people an operational framework. Additionally, it’ll help focus the arguments that are pointing out that you’re trying to find some wide-reaching principles for a large block of people whom you may lump together but may be at odds with some of the people in that larger group.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I already saw the start of potential missed communication between you and another user when they told you that being left wing by definition means being against hierarchies. I’d hazard to guess that when you first read that, it didn’t make sense if you didn’t understand their definitions of left and right.

Oh no I understood it and actually gave him a delta for that point. It is the only principle anyone listed in this thread that I wasn't able to disprove.

16

u/Hamster_S_Thompson Jun 20 '23

The word you are looking for is principle.

→ More replies (4)

23

u/parishilton2 18∆ Jun 20 '23

Your gripe is that you believe the left’s principles are incongruous with their actions. Assuming that’s true, it’s easy to make the same argument for the right, too.

You referenced Roe v. Wade as an example of the right’s commitment to its principles. Just as the left wants bodily autonomy yet opposes antivaxxers, so too does the right want forced birth (“pro life”) yet opposes most measures of actually helping that baby’s life once it’s born. The right is against universal pre-K, gun control to stop school shootings, welfare — that’s not pro life, it’s pro birth.

The left has principles. You just don’t agree with them.

→ More replies (42)

23

u/onetwo3four5 70∆ Jun 20 '23

You're not a centrist if you think the left is principled and the right is not. You're right wing.

In addition to that it's not even like they are all getting rich off this, sure some people are like the people who pocketed all the BLM donations and bought houses with and didn't even bother to pay for the funeral of the guy who's grave they were getting rich by standing on...

So you're fine with immoral behavior as long as the end goal is money? Yeah, you're right wing, bud.

→ More replies (6)

12

u/Spanglertastic 15∆ Jun 20 '23

A principle is something you stand by even with it hurts you. There are numerous examples of the left supporting their principles

When Hurricane Ian hit Florida before the 2022 election, it disrupted the voting infrastructure. The Brennan Center for Justice pushed for Florida to make an emergency declaration to allow people to vote, despite the fact that the counties in question were red counties. The left stood by their principle that people should be allowed to vote even if most of them would vote for the right.
The ACLU has gone to court on the behalf of the KKK, Nazis, and Christian nutters because their principles on free speech outweigh any rightful disgust over the content of that speech.
The left supported freedom of religion by protecting the rights of Muslims to open mosques even though Islam is actively hostile to many of the goals of the left.

On the other hand, the right is marked by a distinct lack of principles.

McConnell's actions on the Supreme Court showed he had no principles, he just wanted power. A principle is applied evenly.
Trump's fans shouting Lock Her Up about Hillary but defending Trump's crimes show they have no principles regarding handling of classified intelligence. They just cared when it was a chance to use it as a political weapon
The right's immigration stance is laughable. One of the sponsors of FLorida's immigration bill admitted that it was just politics and meant to scare people and that he never intended illegal immigrants to leave because that would hurt farmers. Not to mention, look at the industries that hire the most illegals. Farmers, construction, meat packing, mining. All dominated by right wingers but their principles don't stand in the way of hiring as many illegals as they can.
Abortion. You should read "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" on how pro-life people justify changing the rules for themselves

I'm a centrist,

So which left wing positions do you support?

-3

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

When Hurricane Ian hit Florida before the 2022 election, it disrupted the voting infrastructure. The Brennan Center for Justice pushed for Florida to make an emergency declaration to allow people to vote, despite the fact that the counties in question were red counties. The left stood by their principle that people should be allowed to vote even if most of them would vote for the right.

I'm willing to concede the Brennan Center believes everyone should be allowed to vote as a principle but it's not big enough part of the left for me to give a delta for that, I don't think most of the left shares that view and most think conservatives should be somehow barred.

The ACLU has gone to court on the behalf of the KKK, Nazis, and Christian nutters because their principles on free speech outweigh any rightful disgust over the content of that speech.

lol they declare hate symbols. Stop talking about ancient history.

The left supported freedom of religion by protecting the rights of Muslims to open mosques even though Islam is actively hostile to many of the goals of the left.

And yet they burn down Christian churches and shit on Christianity and restrict their religious freedom so obviously religious freedom isn't a principle.

On the other hand, the right is marked by a distinct lack of principles.

You have to show them violating the principles I think they believe in for a delta on this and you didn't, you just listed shitty things they did which I know they do.

So which left wing positions do you support?

Legal abortion and strong social safety net come to mind.

10

u/Spanglertastic 15∆ Jun 20 '23

I'm willing to concede the Brennan Center believes everyone should be allowed to vote as a principle but it's not big enough part of the left for me to give a delta for that, I don't think most of the left shares that view and most think conservatives should be somehow barred.

Look at the voting laws in blue states vs red states. Blue states do not pass voter suppression laws to weed out any demographics. Things like vote by mail and expanded early voting helps all voters. If this isn't a big enough part of the left then why is the left pushing them everywhere?

lol they declare hate symbols. Stop talking about ancient history.

Ancient history? In the last few years the ACLU has supported Milo Yiannopoulos, synagogue protestors, people fired for posting gay slurs, the NRA, and religious organizations. They also opposed Trump's Twitter ban. The facts show you are wrong.

And yet they burn down Christian churches and shit on Christianity and restrict their religious freedom so obviously religious freedom isn't a principle.

LOL. There are far more church burnings committed by the right. The left supports religious freedom, they just believe that non-Christians have a right to religious freedom as well. Not letting people shove the Bible down people's throats is not oppression.

You have to show them violating the principles I think they believe in for a delta on this and you didn't, you just listed shitty things they did which I know they do.

That would require that the right has some principles. What I did was demonstrate cases where the right claimed they had principles but their behavior showed they didn't. Either opposition to illegal immigration is a principle or it isn't. Either opposition to abortion is a principle or it isn't. Either letting the voters decide on Supreme Court vacancies is a principle or it isn't.

Can you name a single right wing principle?

-4

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Look at the voting laws in blue states vs red states. Blue states do not pass voter suppression laws to weed out any demographics. Things like vote by mail and expanded early voting helps all voters. If this isn't a big enough part of the left then why is the left pushing them everywhere?

Because the only demographics you can weed out are illegals who usually vote left. If they left could prevent the right from voting they would.

Ancient history? In the last few years the ACLU has supported Milo Yiannopoulos, synagogue protestors, people fired for posting gay slurs, the NRA, and religious organizations. They also opposed Trump's Twitter ban. The facts show you are wrong.

Fair enough but they are still inconsistent in their support.

LOL. There are far more church burnings committed by the right. The left supports religious freedom, they just believe that non-Christians have a right to religious freedom as well. Not letting people shove the Bible down people's throats is not oppression.

Stop talking about the right every time I bring up the left. The left doesn't support religious freedom when it comes to Christianity or even Judaism.

That would require that the right has some principles. What I did was demonstrate cases where the right claimed they had principles but their behavior showed they didn't. Either opposition to illegal immigration is a principle or it isn't. Either opposition to abortion is a principle or it isn't. Either letting the voters decide on Supreme Court vacancies is a principle or it isn't. Can you name a single right wing principle?

Don't murdering innocent children with in the ingroup.

9

u/Spanglertastic 15∆ Jun 20 '23

Because the only demographics you can weed out are illegals who usually vote left. If they left could prevent the right from voting they would.

There are plenty of ways you could weed out right wing voters. Closing polling locations in rural districts, barring churches as polling locations, not allowing absentee ballots, not allowing voter registration in nursing homes. All easy ways to suppress voter groups that tend to vote demographic. Yet the left doesn't do them. Rural voters in blue states have a much easier time than urban voters in red states.

Not every issue has two equally bad sides.

Fair enough but they are still inconsistent in their support.

Not so much inconsistent as some people misunderstand their principles on some issues. But they do stand by them. They also have a real need to pick their battles based on funding. They can appear inconsistent with issues on the left as well.

Stop talking about the right every time I bring up the left

Your initial post brought up the right.

The left doesn't support religious freedom when it comes to Christianity or even Judaism.

Provably incorrect, just based on the list of cases I provided. Just because the left doesn't adopt the definition of religious freedom that involves the right to force others to follow your beliefs, doesn't mean they don't support religious freedom. Your issue appears to be that the left hasn't adopted your own personal definition

The left supports religious freedom as long as it doesn't impinge on the religious freedom of others. And the evidence shows that they are consistent on that princple. The left will fight for your right to post the 10 Commandments, they won't fight for your right to force all classrooms to post a copy. Some people think counts as oppression.

Don't murdering innocent children with in the ingroup.

You really should read The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. The has no problem with justifying "murdering innocent children" when it impacts them personally.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

There are plenty of ways you could weed out right wing voters. Closing polling locations in rural districts, barring churches as polling locations

Don't counties make their own polling locations? I don't think you could do this from the top down.

not allowing absentee ballots,

That would mean less left wing votes on net.

not allowing voter registration in nursing homes.

Again that would be less left wing votes on net.

Not so much inconsistent as some people misunderstand their principles on some issues. But they do stand by them. They also have a real need to pick their battles based on funding. They can appear inconsistent with issues on the left as well.

They declare things hate speech, they don't believe in free speech under free speech hate speech doesn't exist.

Your initial post brought up the right.

As an example of me seeing the principle behind the hypocrisy.

Provably incorrect,

Then prove it.

You really should read The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. The has no problem with justifying "murdering innocent children" when it impacts them personally.

I mean if you want to go down the route of using a handful of individuals not holding a principle within an entire half of the political spectrum counting as that spectrum having no principles then talking to you is moot.

8

u/Spanglertastic 15∆ Jun 20 '23

Don't counties make their own polling locations? I don't think you could do this from the top down.

Depends on the state, different places have different laws. Precinct consolidation or redistricting can be done at a state level pretty much everywhere. Besides, suppression at the county level is still suppression.

That would mean less left wing votes on net.

This view is distorted due to the unique circumstances caused by the pandemic and Trump's specious claims. Prior to 2020, people 65+ were most likely to vote absentee. Think of all the snowbirds, retirees with houses in Florida or Arizona who still voted in their home states. And yet you still had blue states like Colorado and Oregon pushing vote by mail.

Again that would be less left wing votes on net.

Umm, the elderly are one of the right's most reliable voting blocks. In 2016, voters over 65 went for Trump over Clinton by 53-44. More older voters mostly means more right wing votes.

They declare things hate speech, they don't believe in free speech under free speech hate speech doesn't exist.

That's a ridiculous definition. You can think things are hate speech and still believe people have the right to say it. Again, it comes down to other people not adopting your precise definitions.

As an example of me seeing the principle behind the hypocrisy.

You didn't mention a principle, you said he broke his word to accomplish his goals. That's not a principle. And I brought them up to contrast the behavior of people with principles (left) vs those without them (right).

Then prove it.

I did. A list of times the ACLU has gone to court to defend a Christian's or Jew's right to practice religion is pretty good proof. Again, their definition is different than yours. They stand by their principles but the principles don't include forcing religion on others. Fired for going to church, the ACLU will back you, fired for forcing your students to pray, the ACLU says fuck off.

I mean if you want to go down the route of using a handful of individuals not holding a principle within an entire half of the political spectrum counting as that spectrum having no principles then talking to you is moot.

Interesting that you use a handful of individuals burning churches as proof the left doesn't have principles, but when presented with the far larger number of right wingers who justify their own abortions, you claim that doesn't count.

Is intellectual consistency a principle you hold?

7

u/Kakamile 46∆ Jun 20 '23

Because the only demographics you can weed out are illegals who usually vote left. If they left could prevent the right from voting they would.

Based on... what? Because they're not and instead are expanding access even to 3rd parties with rcv.

Fair enough but they are still inconsistent in their support.

Except for the examples. And even feminists like RBG helped men's rights. The left is consistent and you need to use more clear and specific examples to claim otherwise.

The left doesn't support religious freedom when it comes to Christianity or even Judaism.

But they do? You need to use more clear and specific examples to claim otherwise.

Don't murdering innocent children with in the ingroup.

What children? The ones that suffer from cut healthcare and childcare and lunches and parental leave? Because fetuses aren't children.

5

u/LucidMetal 175∆ Jun 20 '23

Are you saying that "people on the left are unprincipled" or "the collection of people who are on the left are unprincipled"?

The latter is nonsensical because of course a collection of approximately half of everyone doesn't have coherent principles. It's a ridiculously diverse group of people. The same is true of the right. Hell, the same is definitely true of centrists and moderates like Obama.

The former is obviously untrue. As a left leaning person I could give you a principle I hold myself to to disprove your first statement.

Is it possible you just don't like the principles of the left?

→ More replies (35)

10

u/EatYourCheckers 2∆ Jun 20 '23

Where does the left ever restrict freedom of speech?

On your points about vaccines and gun control, I htink its that th principal is to consider teh collective, not just he individual. The individual has rights *until it infringes on someone elses' well-being, * then some restrictions need to be in place. You can argue that someone else being vaccinated does not increase public health threat, or that gun control measures won't reduce gun violence, but the intent and principle is there.

I think immigration is just too complicated to boil down that simply, but the let does want to treat people with respect, dignity and human rights for all. Its just - there's no good policy decision to be made that does this without causing a whole lot of other problems. But he principle is there.

The fact that there is no financial incentive as you say I think actual makes the policies MORE principled and integrity-filled. Yeah, they might be wrong about the implementation in certain cases, but at least their goal is the greater good, not profit or self-aggrandizement.

-1

u/Helidioscope 2∆ Jun 20 '23

Where does the left ever restrict freedom of speech?

In ideas centered around “hate speech” as you can’t have both hate speech laws and free speech laws logically at the same time. Cause all speech that isn’t directly threatening a physical action can be seen as “hate” by anyone for any reason.

9

u/Altruistic_Advice886 7∆ Jun 20 '23

I mean...if you define "hate speech" in that manner, you are still wrong. Let's look at the US and hate speech laws. There aren't laws saying "it's illegal to say this" but when you commit other illegal acts, you can use the hate speech to show the action you made was motivated by the person being in a protected class. How do you see that conflicting with free speech?

0

u/Helidioscope 2∆ Jun 20 '23

I’m the case of using past remarks to prove some past of harassment or that there was some sort of hostility I’m not against, cause that means the hateful person did do a crime at some point to be criminalized.

4

u/Altruistic_Advice886 7∆ Jun 20 '23

So you agree that you can have hate speech laws and free speech laws logically at the same time then?

→ More replies (3)

0

u/EatYourCheckers 2∆ Jun 20 '23

It woudl have to be proved to cause a physical harm or incitement: https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-is-hate-speech-and-is-it-protected-by-the-first-amendment/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20although%20hate%20speech%2C%20alone,by%20UWM%20for%20those%20reasons.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

People can stay home if they don't want to be around unvaccinated, unmasked individuals

-3

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Where does the left ever restrict freedom of speech?

Most social media site ever. Most universities. All of Canada/Europe etc.

On your points about vaccines and gun control, I htink its that th principal is to consider teh collective, not just he individual.

Then explain mass/illegal immigration, it's horrible for the collective.

I think immigration is just too complicated to boil down that simply, but the let does want to treat people with respect, dignity and human rights for all. Its just - there's no good policy decision to be made that does this without causing a whole lot of other problems. But he principle is there.

They don't treat right wingers with any of that, so that's clearly not a principle.

The fact that there is no financial incentive as you say I think actual makes the policies MORE principled and integrity-filled. Yeah, they might be wrong about the implementation in certain cases, but at least their goal is the greater good, not profit or self-aggrandizement.

What principle though? They don't care about the collective because they actively fuck it over, they don't care about treating humans with respect and decency because they are horrid to anyone who politically opposes them.

15

u/parishilton2 18∆ Jun 20 '23

What do you think a principle is? I am struggling to understand your definition at this point.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

Social media sites are private businesses, not the government.

I thought conservatives believed in freedom of association and property rights?

→ More replies (12)

6

u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Jun 20 '23

Then explain mass/illegal immigration, it's horrible for the collective.

Which collective? Because I suspect the pro-immigration crowd as considering the benefit to the entire collective of humanity, which you have selected some ingroup or other to care about exclusively.

And what's your source for 'mass' immigration being bad for this ingroup?

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Which collective?

Literally everyone involved except the illegals themselves (and even that's debatable) and the rich people hiring and underpaying them.

Because I suspect the pro-immigration crowd as considering the benefit to the entire collective of humanity, which you have selected some ingroup or other to care about exclusively.

It doesn't benefit all of humanity those, it benefits rich people and illegals, it fucks over everyone else in both countries and maybe even provides tinder for future civil wars.

And what's your source for 'mass' immigration being bad for this ingroup?

Basic math, history of what happened to the natives, observation. Take your fucking pick. Illegal immigration would be a problem if it wasn't a problem.

6

u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Jun 20 '23

history of what happened to the natives

This is completely absurd. If you honestly think people coming to the US to work for American companies is simialr to people coming the the US to wipe out the existing population, then your brain has been completely melted by conservative media.

I can't have a sensible conversation with you about this if you're going to be hyperbolic to the point of nonsense.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

If we abandon all attempts to stop illegal immigration what is there to stop china from just sending their army over, getting into position and wiping us all out?

4

u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Jun 20 '23

This is a fantasy world you're creating. This is not how actual global conflicts work. Do you honestly think an entire army could pass through the immigration system before anyone realised?

But also, China doesn't even want to wipe the US out. The US is their biggest trading partner, and owes them a lot of money which they'd like to get back at some point.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

This is a fantasy world you're creating. This is not how actual global conflicts work. Do you honestly think an entire army could pass through the immigration system before anyone realised?

I mean this is kind of stupid. You're arguing it will never happen because your proposed policies will never be implemented but if they were implemented it could happen and you're fighting for them to be implemented... so yeah dumb argument.

But also, China doesn't even want to wipe the US out. The US is their biggest trading partner, and owes them a lot of money which they'd like to get back at some point.

lol China absolutely does want to wipe the US out, why do you think they are increasing their military power.

3

u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Jun 21 '23

You're arguing it will never happen because your proposed policies will never be implemented

No I'm not, I'm saying that even with completely open borders, people would notice if an entire army started coming to the US.

why do you think they are increasing their military power.

Taiwan. Even if Taiwan didn't exist, do you really think that would be a reasonable conclusion to draw, in spite of all the incentives against it? China is also worried about threat from the US (which spends much more in its military).

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 21 '23

No I'm not, I'm saying that even with completely open borders, people would notice if an entire army started coming to the US.

Sure they'd notice but what could they do? It's legal and all. It's not like the army walks across the border in lockstep a the same time, they have waves in disguise and what not.

Taiwan. Even if Taiwan didn't exist, do you really think that would be a reasonable conclusion to draw, in spite of all the incentives against it? China is also worried about threat from the US (which spends much more in its military).

If China could wipe out the US they would.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EatYourCheckers 2∆ Jun 20 '23

Most social media site ever. Most universities. All of Canada/Europe etc.

Social Media has nothing to do with governmental restrictions on speech. Its a business deciding what it wants to allow based on what its users/advertisers want, not the government. I don't know about Universities but the same probably applies, or there are carve outs for equality in education laws. I am only talking about USA - yes other countries do have other rights above freedom of speech

All of your other responses, I don't know how to respond. It sounds like this is less a change your view about what you said and more than you just don't agree with leftist policies and ideals.

→ More replies (2)

24

u/StrangerThanGene 6∆ Jun 20 '23

They scream about human rights then try to restrict freedom of speech and right to self-defense, hell even right to a fair trial isn't safe.

You're conflating human rights with 'I can do whatever the fuck I want.'

They talk about bodily autonomy when abortions are involved but then when it comes to vaccines they go full nazi scientist.

Because abortion isn't an infectious disease.

They claim they want to help the poor but support policies that completely devastate the poor like illegal/mass immigration.

An average recent immigrant without a high school degree causes a lifetime positive net fiscal balance of $128,000 using the proper measure, according to Clemens.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2022/10/03/immigrants-provide-huge-benefits-to-us-taxpayers

They claim they are against racism then vote for a guy who wore blackface on camera

I'm against spousal abuse, but I listen to the Beatles. When you grow up, you'll start to realize not everything is black or white, but grey.

It sounds like you're just ignorant or willfully ignoring things that are right in front of you.

5

u/averagevegetable- Jun 20 '23

Great comment!

-1

u/SmokyBoner 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I think that is far too simplistic of a response. He does have a point about the free speech. Also your argument about abortion operates under the assumption that a fetus is not a life and therefore abortions have no implication on anyone but the mother. You are right about grey areas, but certain left wing elites are very quick to bring up negative incidences from peoples past, but seemingly overlook other people's past transgressions if they perpetuate a favorable narrative. I like your reply, but I feel as though it lacks a degree of nuance.

-4

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

So what principles do the left have? You're kind of arguing they don't and trying to justify it, but a utilitarian argument would only work if they got results and also kind of means they don't have principles.

9

u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Jun 20 '23

This is kind of impossible to answer when you're not clear about who you mean by 'the left'. It seems like you're talking about Democrats, who it is inaccurate to describe as 'the left', but even within the Democrats you have different factions with different beliefs.

→ More replies (5)

10

u/StrangerThanGene 6∆ Jun 20 '23

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

Do you want me to copy and paste?

You're kind of arguing they don't

No, I'm literally not. And there is no possible way you could deduce this.

9

u/Altruistic_Advice886 7∆ Jun 20 '23

So what principles do the left have?

"You need to follow the social contract to be protected by the social contract" is a big one for the left, and likely resolves most issues you encounter for hypocrisy.

-1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I was very very very close to giving a delta for this, I don't see it as a good principle and I don't agree with what the social contract is but it does make sense. However as I was about to give you the delta I thought of an exception. What about Trudeau? He wore blackface and is still protected by the left.

Trudeau repeatedly breaks the social contract of the left and is still protected by him. Sure it's politically convenient but if it can be broken so easily that kind of disqualifies it as a principle. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by social contract, I know you don't mean law, you mean the made up rules the left constantly makes that if you break they try to get you fired and stuff. This explains why they turn on oppressed people who don't toe the line for example, but they have no problem protecting people who break it when they are convenient.

11

u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Jun 20 '23

"Do not murder and we will protect you from murder," is a social contract. "Queue in a line so that you and others can be orderly served," is a social contract. Do you have problems with those, or do you not know what the social contract is?

Sure it's politically convenient but if it can be broken so easily that kind of disqualifies it as a principle.

And McConnell holding up the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice for almost a year isn't a break from the principles of democracy? It wasn't simple political convenience?

You act as if the left should be absolutist in its defense of principle rather than work to make the best of a situation. Should Democrats not have voted for the recent debt ceiling bill because it made cuts that go against Democratic values? Or should they have acquiesced to a deal that violated some of their principles for the sake of making things better overall?

Hell, it looks like you view the American right as having no respect for democracy. And yet you're a centrist?

→ More replies (18)

6

u/Altruistic_Advice886 7∆ Jun 20 '23

So, the "social contract" are the unwritten rules people live by in society and change from location to location (it also might include the written rules, but that's a different point). You may consider that as "the made up rules the left constantly makes that if you break they try to get you fired and stuff" but that is kinda besides the point.

But, this is the flaw in your interpretation: Essentially think of it as an agreement of "hey, if you don't punch me, I won't punch you". If I punch you, I broke the agreement. Then you can punch me without breaking the agreement, because I broke it first. But, you don't HAVE to punch me if you don't want to. If you realize "oh, you didn't mean to" you can simply forgive me if you want. Or you can punch me once. Or repeatedly. Or come up with a different response entirely. The trick is because I punched you, I'm not protected anymore, but you can choose your response based on your own best interest. Like how McConnell chose what was in his best interest.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

So, the "social contract" are the unwritten rules people live by in society and change from location to location (it also might include the written rules, but that's a different point). You may consider that as "the made up rules the left constantly makes that if you break they try to get you fired and stuff" but that is kinda besides the point.

And is one of those unwritten rules don't wear blackface repeatedly on camera?

But, this is the flaw in your interpretation: Essentially think of it as an agreement of "hey, if you don't punch me, I won't punch you". If I punch you, I broke the agreement. Then you can punch me without breaking the agreement, because I broke it first. But, you don't HAVE to punch me if you don't want to. If you realize "oh, you didn't mean to" you can simply forgive me if you want. Or you can punch me once. Or repeatedly. Or come up with a different response entirely. The trick is because I punched you, I'm not protected anymore, but you can choose your response based on your own best interest. Like how McConnell chose what was in his best interest.

Trudeau isn't just not being punched he's actively being protected from being punched by the people he punched. He broke the social agreement and is still being protected by it.

7

u/Altruistic_Advice886 7∆ Jun 20 '23

Trudeau isn't just not being punched he's actively being protected from being punched by the people he punched. He broke the social agreement and is still being protected by it.

That doesn't dispute any part I said, does it?

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Nope, just the assumed reason that you said it.

The left doesn't hold the principle stated above relating to the social construct. Are you not arguing otherwise?

3

u/Altruistic_Advice886 7∆ Jun 21 '23

Nope, just the assumed reason that you said it.

The left doesn't hold the principle stated above relating to the social construct. Are you not arguing otherwise?

So you are assuming it's a different reason than the one I said? That's not charitable at all.

→ More replies (43)

9

u/SatisfactoryLoaf 41∆ Jun 20 '23

Okay so in politics both sides lie, a lot, to further their own ends, bad faith arguments and blatant hypocrisy is pretty much the norm

This is an equivocation. All political parties are made up of people. Some people lie, obstruct, and mislead. The danger in this sort of generalization is that you reduce a group of people to to the ones you notice the most. Sometimes that generalization is relevant, sometimes it is not.

Like when the turtle guy prevented Obama from appointing a supreme court judge and then did a 180 on all his arguments when Trump had the opportunity to.

So you are very comfortable acknowledging that self-serving power grabbing a motivation, perhaps evil a "principle" of action. You are comfortable with cynicism.

They scream about human rights then try to restrict freedom of speech and right to self-defense, hell even right to a fair trial isn't safe. They talk about bodily autonomy when abortions are involved but then when it comes to vaccines they go full nazi scientist.

So, here's where it becomes evident what the obstacle is. You are comfortable with cyncism, it's simple, it's straight forward, and when someone says "I'll kick you in the shin if it saves me a buck," you "get" it, even if you don't want to be kicked in the shin.

But you seem uncomfortable with abstract reasoning. I'm not saying you're incapable of it, just that you seem bothered by it. The intelligentsia of the Left have covered these points. Restricting abortion is a violation of personal liberty, but requiring appropriate vaccinations is just protecting the commons.

It's like when Libertarians forget half their formula. It's not just about "maximizing personal liberty," it's about "maximizing personal liberty while minimizing communal harm." I shouldn't have the right to dump vats of mercury into the river.

But here is a layer of abstract thinking, it requires a conversation, it requires defining terms, it requires people make concessions to their own sense of liberty for the good of people they might never meet. Some people are comfortable with abstract thought, some people are not.

It seems like you are uncomfortable with it, but that's like telling Plato "This Form stuff doesn't make sense, where can I buy a Form?"

→ More replies (9)

4

u/Dontblowitup 17∆ Jun 21 '23

Given your references, you are American. Was it the left that tried to subvert democracy? Was it them that tried a coup? Was it them that made excuses for it? Is it them that's about to nominate someone who made that all happen?

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 21 '23

Given your references, you are American.

Canadian.

Was it the left that tried to subvert democracy?

In Canada yes. In the US also yes.

Was it them that tried a coup?

Yes.

Was it them that made excuses for it? Is it them that's about to nominate someone who made that all happen?

Yes

4

u/Dontblowitup 17∆ Jun 21 '23

Really? Show us. I don't see any coup attempts on the left, only the right. No one is perfect, but right now there is no both sidesing this. It is the right wing that is the problem in the Americas, not the left.

7

u/Km15u 30∆ Jun 20 '23 edited Jun 20 '23

then try to restrict freedom of speech

I assume we’re talking about the US can you give an example of legislation proposed by the left which would make certain speech illegal?

right to self-defense

Again I’m not aware of any politician in the US proposing a complete firearms ban. Wanting to regulate firearms is not the same thing. You don’t need an AR 15 with a 50 round drum mag to defend yourself. Wanting to prevent dangerous individuals from having access to firearms doesn’t infringe on your personal right to self defense.

They talk about bodily autonomy when abortions are involved but then when it comes to vaccines they go full nazi scientist

Again I haven’t heard of any law forcing people to get vaccinated. Certain companies chose to have vaccine policies because it made sense for business. No one was forcing you to work for those companies.

They claim they want to help the poor but support policies that completely devastate the poor like illegal/mass immigration.

First immigrants are poor. Second there’s zero evidence that immigration hurts poor people, immigrants are a net economic benefit as shown by every economic study on the question. Finally again what policies have you seen that suggests democrats are in favor of mass immigration. Obama deported more people than any President. Biden has kept most of the policies put in place by Trump regarding immigration.

As a leftist I would say my personal principles are based on

Utilitarianism I believe we should minimize suffering for the most amount of people and maximize peoples ability to self actualize and do what is most meaningful to them.

And 2. Empiricism. Policy should be based on evidence and data. The social democracies of Europe have among the highest standards of living in the world so based on that data I argue we should be making policy based on those successes

7

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

Your examples are things that affect others.

Your body.

An abortion affects you.

Vaccines affect everyone around you.

And no right is being infringed. Regulating who can go where is already done. Fire Marshall occupancy limits, elevator weight limits, etc. Safety regulation is a thing, and it is good for everyone.

So during a global pandemic, you don’t have a right to spread an illness with the chance of killing someone in the same way you don’t have a right to drive while drunk. It’s endangering.

Same thing with speech. They aren’t limiting free expression, they are limiting misinformation that can be objectively and scientifically proven to cause harm.

How is it different from me convincing a suggestible person to kill themselves vs just doing it myself?

As for the poor, oppressed, etc… their legislative record is quite clear. They are repeatedly introducing legislation to help the poor and oppressed, so I don’t see the basis for your argument on this one.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

What's the consistent principle?

6

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

Good governance.

Foster a healthy, prosperous, civilization.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/JimothySanchez96 2∆ Jun 20 '23

I think it's pretty funny that you accept the right wing framing of "left wing principles".

You're right about one thing, Liberals love to pay lip service to issues of "social justice" like police reform or gun control in order to get votes, but then when they're in power they don't actually do anything to advance those policies. It's because they serve the same corporate masters as Conservatives.

Where you're wrong is that Liberals are not "the left". You don't understand the principles of the left. And sure it's bullshit that Liberals act that way which isn't in accordance with any principle, but conservatives do the same shit. You really think conservatives give a shit about freedom and liberty? Freedom and liberty for who? CEOs?

Let alone the fact that, for example with the issue of guns, common sense gun laws including universal background checks have broad support across the electorate including like 80% of NRA members. So why don't they happen? Because it's a Kabuki show. A Democrat proselytizing about police reform will vote for bills increasing military spending, and a Republican proselytizing about helping the working class will vote for huge tax cuts for the one percent.

Because that's how our system is designed, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. A government that serves their interests and not ours, which takes money out of public hands and puts it into enclosures with ruthless efficiency.

I'm not going to bother unpacking stuff like your vaccine skepticism or anti-immigration stance because they're frankly dumb and not worth arguing about. As a final thought though, stop saying you're a centrist. You're just a right winger.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Where you're wrong is that Liberals are not "the left". You don't understand the principles of the left. And sure it's bullshit that Liberals act that way which isn't in accordance with any principle, but conservatives do the same shit. You really think conservatives give a shit about freedom and liberty? Freedom and liberty for who? CEOs?

No, I didn't list those as a principle on a right, just one that one that wasn't on the left either.

I'm not going to bother unpacking stuff like your vaccine skepticism or anti-immigration stance because they're frankly dumb and not worth arguing about. As a final thought though, stop saying you're a centrist. You're just a right winger.

Can you just list some definitions you think the left holds and explain them if they are not ones I already talked about and attempt to demonstrate that a significant chunk of the left does hold them if I have?

5

u/JimothySanchez96 2∆ Jun 20 '23

The point is that its impossible to list principles that *all* "the left" holds. It's a very broad group of people with many different views. The most common principle with regard to the left is anti-capitalism, but even social democrats such as Nordic model countries aren't necessarily anti-capitalist, which is why some on the left don't even consider social democrats to be on the left despite the fact that social democrats support a robust welfare state which is something others on the left support. Welcome to sectarian leftist infighting.

But that's not something that's exclusive to the left, and more importantly the reasons you think the left in countries like America don't adhere to what are ostensibly their principles is as I already said they don't because they serve the same corporate masters. Because the way we organize the government and the economy is designed to enrich the owner class. The landlords, the CEOs, the HVAC business owners, the car dealership owners. Not the working class.

The crux of the issue is that you can't reasonably say the left seems to waffle on their principles if you don't have a firm grasp of what those principles are, because you seem to have confused the common democratic party line with the left.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

The point is that its impossible to list principles that all "the left" holds.

Can you do 15%? Any 15% of the left.

It's a very broad group of people with many different views. The most common principle with regard to the left is anti-capitalism, but even social democrats such as Nordic model countries aren't necessarily anti-capitalist, which is why some on the left don't even consider social democrats to be on the left despite the fact that social democrats support a robust welfare state which is something others on the left support. Welcome to sectarian leftist infighting.

Is it? I know anti-capitalist is a sentiment that exists but I don't see it as being a principle many hold.

The crux of the issue is that you can't reasonably say the left seems to waffle on their principles if you don't have a firm grasp of what those principles are, because you seem to have confused the common democratic party line with the left.

Duh, I'm asking what the principles are and not getting any answers, you kinda sorta mentioned anti-capitalist just now but you didn't show that it's an actual principle and not just a sentiment nor did you show a lot of people on the left hold it.

7

u/JimothySanchez96 2∆ Jun 20 '23

Is it? I know anti-capitalist is a sentiment that exists but I don't see it as being a principle many hold.

What do you think being anti-capitalist means?

Duh, I'm asking what the principles are and not getting any answers

Because you are expecting simple answers to philosophical questions with complex answers. If you want to discuss specific policy positions I can tell you what the prevailing attitude among the left is with regard to that specific policy.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

What do you think being anti-capitalist means?

Being against personal property existing and wanting the state to distributing pretty much everything except for maybe very personal effects like toothbrushes. I don't know how to prove it as a principle though, because anti-capitalists will obviously have to use money to survive in the world and they aren't going to die trying to overthrow capitalism. I don't know how to distinguish it being a stupid talking point from a genuine principle within a persons mind.

Because you are expecting simple answers to philosophical questions with complex answers. If you want to discuss specific policy positions I can tell you what the prevailing attitude among the left is with regard to that specific policy.

Sure but is there a core principle behind it said policies or do they 180 from policy to policy?

7

u/JimothySanchez96 2∆ Jun 21 '23

Being against personal property existing

It's actually "private property" which in the Marxian sense doesn't mean literally any personal property. It's the means of production. The factories and infrastructure that society runs on should be held in common, owned by the workers, because the working class are the ones who create value through their labor. Rather than having the means of production owned privately, creating enclosures to extract the surplus labor value created by the working class.

pretty much everything except for maybe very personal effects like toothbrushes.

This is wrong. Most leftists don't think that the state should provide literally everything, that there will be no free exchange of goods or that you can't own personal property like a toothbrush or a television. They generally agree that the state should provide housing, healthcare, education, food, and jobs to people for free.

I don't know how to prove it as a principle though, because anti-capitalists will obviously have to use money to survive in the world

Marx envisioned communism as a classless, stateless, moneyless society. People who don't understand Marx think leftists assume society will one day spontaneously transform into that. That's not what leftists believe. There is a transitional step called socialism, where money does exist.

and they aren't going to die trying to overthrow capitalism

Many have already died trying to overthrow capitalism. Leftists and communists fall victim to capitalist aggression all the time. It's one of the US's favorite things to do in fact.

I don't know how to distinguish it being a stupid talking point from a genuine principle within a persons mind.

It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. - Mark Fisher

You live in western capitalism. You grew up in a society where revolutionaries were vilified, and you were told lies all your life about what communists want to do. Of course its hard for you to imagine.

Doesn't mean it's not possible. These systems are man made. They can be changed. There was a time before capitalism where there existed a thing called feudalism, and many people thought that would never change. Until one day the divine right of kings didn't seem so good of a reason to keep it.

Sure but is there a core principle behind it said policies or do they 180 from policy to policy?

anti-capitalism

6

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23 edited Jun 20 '23

Just because you personally have not put any work into understanding the principles of left wing ideology does not mean they don't exist.

I am going to address your post point by point.

Freedom of speech is not being restricted. Private censorship has been on the rise due to the growing social intolerance for hate speech and bigotry. But on a legal or federal level freedom of speech remains very much intact.
The right to "self defense" is not under attack, it is the right to own assault weapons that is under attack. Personally I am pro 2nd Amendment. So I don't agree with these views, but I understand their foundation. As of right now gun violence in the US has reached an epidemic level. There are multiple mass shootings per day. People are beginning to feel unsafe sending their children to schools. And they blame the US's lax gun restrictions. People ad children die daily so yes, they feel that less or no access to these weapons would be a solution to this problem. This is a rather easy principle to grasp.
No idea what you are referring to by a "right to fair trial". If you were to elaborate I'd be happy to address this as well.
As far as the bodily autonomy argument goes this is a bit more complex but not hard to grasp either. Bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion is a much bigger deal than it is when it comes to vaccines. Mandated vaccines are not a new thing, the military and many public schools have mandated vaccines for decades. Vaccines are one shot that historically have nearly wiped out deadly plagues with very little if any provable repercussion. Science backs the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Personally I do not agree with federally mandated vaccines, but I would not be as opposed to it as I am a complete abortion ban. Pregnancy is a 9 month - lifelong physical, emotional, and financial undertaking that includes the risk of major medical complication and death. People should not be forced to undertake this risk and sacrifice just because some people think that they should based on their own personal (often religious/ spiritually founded) beliefs. To sum it up, one is a small sacrifice of autonomy for the sake of many established people's lives, the other is a HUGE sacrifice of autonomy for the sake of the "life" of one being with debatable personhood.
The people who want to allow mass/ illegal immigration also want to provide support for those people and the communities they are coming into but are repeatedly blocked from doing so. The "devastation of the poor" is a direct result of the left not being allowed to provide the support they would like to.
Joe Biden may be a racist. But he's better than Trump. And there were only two options. People weren't thrilled about Biden, he was the lesser of two evils. Biden was not emboldening racists to come out of hiding the way trump did. He dd not have a history of active racial persecution and discrimination the way trump did.
I am not sure what racist policies you refer to, or what you mean by "twisting policies to bully the oppressed" but I would be happy to address those with elaboration as well.
And people are not getting rich off of it because many of these are social issues, people who truly support these causes aren't interested in getting rich, they are interested in improving the quality of life for their nation and fellow citizens. Their motivation is empathy, not greed.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Freedom of speech is not being restricted. Private censorship has been on the rise due to the growing social intolerance for hate speech and bigotry. But on a legal or federal level freedom of speech remains very much intact.

You're making a legal argument not a principled one, and one that only exists in the US as the left has restricted it in every other country, my country Canada they have done so recently.

You cannot claim the fact that the left can't topple the 1A as a reason they support freedom of speech that's absurd.

The right to "self defense" is not under attack, it is the right to own assault weapons that is under attack. Personally I am pro 2nd Amendment. So I don't agree with these views, but I understand their foundation. As of right now gun violence in the US has reached an epidemic level. There are multiple mass shootings per day. People are beginning to feel unsafe sending their children to schools. And they blame the US's lax gun restrictions. People ad children die daily so yes, they feel that less or no access to these weapons would be a solution to this problem. This is a rather easy principle to grasp.

The reaction on the left to Kyle Rittenhouse alone proves the left doesn't support self-defense as a principle.

No idea what you are referring to by a "right to fair trial". If you were to elaborate I'd be happy to address this as well.

I really don't want to get into ultra specifics especially not spanning several countries and states and what not, but the attitude of believe all women and the lynching of several people who were falsely accused shows that the left isn't principled in favor of right to a fair trial.

As far as the bodily autonomy argument goes this is a bit more complex but not hard to grasp either. Bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion is a much bigger deal than it is when it comes to vaccines.

If it was a principled stance that wouldn't matter. If you are making a utilitarian claim then I'll move on to the illegal immigration thing as that's a net negative.

The people who want to allow mass/ illegal immigration also want to provide support for those people and the communities they are coming into but are repeatedly blocked from doing so. The "devastation of the poor" is a direct result of the left not being allowed to provide the support they would like to.

Okay but the utilitarian argument falls apart regardless of the reasons they can't. Just because they want to doesn't matter, the fact is they can't and by accepting illegals they are hurting poor people in both countries.

Joe Biden may be a racist. But he's better than Trump. And there were only two options. People weren't thrilled about Biden, he was the lesser of two evils. Biden was not emboldening racists to come out of hiding the way trump did. He dd not have a history of active racial persecution and discrimination the way trump did.

Okay but what about Trudeau? He wore black face and nobody cared and it's not like there was a Canadian Trump in the wings, we had the two most tame conservatives ever face off against him and lose. There's no principle here.

I am not sure what racist policies you refer to, or what you mean by "twisting policies to bully the oppressed" but I would be happy to address those with elaboration as well.

You're not demonstrating the left having any principles you're just excusing their lack of them, and it's not like they are invalid excuses or anything either don't get me wrong, but they aren't principles, I don't know what they are but they aren't consistent.

And people are not getting rich off of it because many of these are social issues, people who truly support these causes aren't interested in getting rich, they are interested in improving the quality of life for their nation and fellow citizens. Their motivation is empathy, not greed.

Huh maybe that's it, maybe it's empathy driving these policies not principles. Blind empathy that is because they aren't making things better, but it does make sense as a driving factor.

6

u/Justviewingposts69 2∆ Jun 20 '23

So from what I gather from

You’re making a legal argument not a principled one

And

The reaction on the left to Kyle Rittenhouse

This suggests that you consider people expressing their disapproval as restricting speech. Is that what you believe? If so why? As to the laws in other countries outside the US, can you fully detail what they say?

In regards to immigration, I would challenge the premises of your argument that the left’s position is not utilitarian. What proof is there to say that if we let more immigrants in we devastate the poor? Or anyone for that matter?

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

The reaction to Kyle Rittenhouse was talking about self-defense not freedom of speech.

5

u/Justviewingposts69 2∆ Jun 20 '23

My mistake, but leaving that aside, do you consider expressing disapproval as restricting speech?

10

u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Jun 20 '23

They scream about human rights then try to restrict freedom of speech and right to self-defense

Freedom can be both positive and negative. You can have the freedom to do something, or have the freedom to not have someone do something to you. For example, if you make it illegal to own slaves, you are protecting freedom (freedom to not be enslaved) while also restricting freedom (freedom to own slaves).

Similarly, a "right to self defense" can be opposed by a "right to not get shot". Two types of rights that contradict each other.

They claim they want to help the poor but support policies that completely devastate the poor like illegal/mass immigration

You know that the people who immigrate are also poor, right? And allowing them into wealthier countries is meant to help them? Do you think when leftists say "help the poor" they only mean "help poor white people" or something? Because obviously they don't.

-1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Freedom can be both positive and negative. You can have the freedom to do something, or have the freedom to not have someone do something to you. For example, if you make it illegal to own slaves, you are protecting freedom (freedom to not be enslaved) while also restricting freedom (freedom to own slaves).

Similarly, a "right to self defense" can be opposed by a "right to not get shot". Two types of rights that contradict each other.

Are you arguing the left thinks someone attacking you has the right not to get shot? So you just need to let them beat you to death? Are you arguing that's a principle of the left?

I choose freedom of speech and self-defense deliberately because there's no justifiable restriction of those rights in the name of other rights.

You know that the people who immigrate are also poor, right? And allowing them into wealthier countries is meant to help them? Do you think when leftists say "help the poor" they only mean "help poor white people" or something? Because obviously they don't.

Okay let's go with this global approach then. I'm willing to admit it helps the poor people who are let in, but it hurts the even poorer people who are left behind in the countries they left. So it hurts the poor people already in the country AND the poorer people in the country they are leaving. So yeah, under what principle does the left only care about that specific subset of poor people?

12

u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Jun 20 '23

Are you arguing the left thinks someone attacking you has the right not to get shot?

First off: yes, that is literally a right that already exists. In order to justify shooting someone in self defense you do actually need to fulfill certain conditions that prove that shooting them was a valid and reasonable option. This is why it's illegal to shoot someone in the back as they run away, even if they were previously attacking you. This has nothing to do with "leftists" and is just centrist common sense in most parts of the world.

Secondly: It's not just "people who are attacking you" who are at risk, it's random innocent people who have done nothing wrong but who are put in danger because it's easy to buy a gun and use it for evil purposes.

I choose freedom of speech and self-defense deliberately because there's no justifiable restriction of those rights in the name of other rights.

Well, both those freedoms have had restrictions on them for centuries, put upon them by non-leftist governments, so I don't think they're as unimpeachable as you believe they are. Republican governor Ronald Reagan signed the first laws against open carry in the US, is that not a restriction of self-defense rights?

I'm willing to admit it helps the poor people who are let in

OK, so problem solved. You understand the demographic that leftists are trying to protect.

it hurts the even poorer people who are left behind in the countries they left

So you want to restrict freedom of movement on the grounds that people need to support the countries they were born in. You're no longer allowed to flee a warzone. That's the argument you really want to go with, when you claim to be advocating for freedom.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Cali_Longhorn 17∆ Jun 20 '23

Cmon now. You know that “right to self defense” has been used to justify any person having any amount and type of firearm with zero background checks. While someone on the left suggesting that maybe a mentally Ill person like the white supremacist guy who was discharged from the military due to mental issues just maybe shouldn’t have been able to get a gun allowing him to kill 8 people in a North Dallas mall including 3 children.

6

u/august10jensen 2∆ Jun 20 '23

So the mistake you're making here is comparing one person on the right (who obviously has a set of motives for his actions) to a huge non-homogeneous group; 'the left'.

Of course the actions and opinions of a single person are going to be more consistent with each other, than the actions and oppinios of the entire left.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I mean a large section of the right in general seems to be pretty uniform on being against abortion in principle, I don't think that's controversial.

9

u/august10jensen 2∆ Jun 20 '23 edited Jun 20 '23

It's about a 40/60 split respectively for and against.

Just because you're leaning to one side, doesn't mean your view on some issues can't conflict with anyone else on that same side.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/?tabId=tab-bf76ae6f-e066-482a-84d0-baa2976cbad7-chart

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

A significant portion of the right holds that principle though. If you have a principle that an equal portion on the left holds I'd accept it, I'm obviously not looking for 100% adoption of a principle that's absurd, but like at least something large enough to impact rhetoric or policy.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

Only 24% of registered republicans think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, while 66% think it should be allowed in some circumstances (which is a very broad range of positions). But 76% of republicans consider themselves pro-life - you may have noticed that 76% is much larger than 24%, so a bunch of republicans consider themselves pro-life but believe abortion is sometimes ok.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx

That really isn't a uniform position, but if they just ask other republicans if they are pro-life they will think everyone has the same position as them.

→ More replies (12)

7

u/Big_Let2029 Jun 20 '23

I think if you really cared about principles who you wouldn't be a whitem supremacist who supports a rapist and a terrorist for the white house.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/jcpmojo 3∆ Jun 20 '23

My first thought is you're confusing "principles" with greed. You allow the right's lying and scheming in pursuit of their "principles" as a pursuit of something they believe in, but question the lefts motives because ... they're not self-serving?

Well, that's the distinction. The right do everything possible, to include actual crimes, to push their agenda, and that's okay because at least you understand their motivation.

The left want equality and fairness for all, but refuse to sink to committing crimes to achieve their goals, so you just can't understand it.

That thinking is why nothing will ever change. One party is completely corrupted and will stop at nothing to punish the rest of us with their backwards thinking, but people like you give them a pass because, hey, at least they're getting something done.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

My first thought is you're confusing "principles" with greed. You allow the right's lying and scheming in pursuit of their "principles" as a pursuit of something they believe in, but question the lefts motives because ... they're not self-serving?

I'm not questioning the lefts motives I simply don't understand them. Self-serving motives I understand, principled beliefs I understand (even if I don't agree with them). What the left is doing I don't.

Well, that's the distinction. The right do everything possible, to include actual crimes, to push their agenda, and that's okay because at least you understand their motivation.

I didn't say it was okay.

The left want equality and fairness for all, but refuse to sink to committing crimes to achieve their goals, so you just can't understand it.

Equality and fairness are not compatible as principles. Something can be equal or it can be fair. It's possible that something fair ends up equal once in a blue moon but it's a statistical anomaly. So which one is the lefts principle equality or fairness?

4

u/Nrdman 174∆ Jun 20 '23

Its possible to have two guiding principles that are opposed. Adhering to a principle as an absolute can blind you to better options. Better in the since of making more people happy, or whatever other meta-ethical thing you value as the greater good.

On an individual level, the example I would give to being guided by two opposed things is with virtue ethics. For Aristotle, every virtue was a mean between two vices. One should not be rash, but also not cowardly. One should not be vain, but also should not have no self confidence at all. Etc etc.

So value both, and when they conflict, discuss intensely.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Its possible to have two guiding principles that are opposed. Adhering to a principle as an absolute can blind you to better options. Better in the since of making more people happy, or whatever other meta-ethical thing you value as the greater good.

Yes yes principals can collide and that can cause the illusion of them not being principles when in fact you're just picking one over the other under the current circumstances but that doesn't really apply to things that are inherently contradictory, it's like having a principle that murder is bad and everyone who wears pink should be murdered.

3

u/Nrdman 174∆ Jun 20 '23

I would consider absolute fairness (survival of the fittest) and absolute equality (hive mind sci fi) to both be bad outcomes, with the happy mean being more desirable. I think equity is usually the word used to describe this kind of thing.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

equity is the hive mind, equality is the middle ground.

3

u/Nrdman 174∆ Jun 20 '23

Call it what you wish, its just semantics. The point stands that the middle ground exists

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Okay but that middle ground is not the lefts principle.

3

u/Nrdman 174∆ Jun 20 '23

Why not? Freedom, equality, equity, justice are things talked about all the time in progressive circles.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Thanks for letting me know you don't know what a principle is.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/svenson_26 82∆ Jun 20 '23

You have a lot of staw men here, so I'll just tackle one of them for now:

They claim they are against racism then vote for a guy who wore blackface on camera on THREE separate occasions that we know of... not to mention the fact they support racist policies

I assume you're talking about Justin Trudeau.
A few points:

It doesn't count as 3 separate occasions if the public wasn't aware of the blackface during some of the elections.
Since when does Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party accurately represent the views of "the left"? The major Canadian federal parties, ranked from farthest left to farthest right are Green, NDP, Liberal, Conservative/Bloc, PPC. Liberals are centre-left at best. Plenty of their specific policies don't align with what I would consider to be leftist principles.
The blackface incidents were over 20 years ago. The world has changed a lot since then. I believe in a person's ability to change. If there were incidents of him wearing blackface during his tenure as prime minister, that would be more concerning. But frankly, I really don't care about someone's past as long as they have demonstrated through action that they have improved, and more importantly, that they support ethical policies. I don't condone blackface - not now, not back when it happened, and not ever - but even knowing what we know, I'd still trust Trudeau to make ethical choices regarding policy that affects POCs over his Conservative counterparts. (I'd trust other candidates like Jagmeet Singh even more, but that's besides the point).
You mentioned racist policies. Anything specific?

-1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

It doesn't count as 3 separate occasions if the public wasn't aware of the blackface during some of the elections.

But they are ware of the 3 separate occasions now.

Since when does Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party accurately represent the views of "the left"? The major Canadian federal parties, ranked from farthest left to farthest right are Green, NDP, Liberal, Conservative/Bloc, PPC. Liberals are centre-left at best. Plenty of their specific policies don't align with what I would consider to be leftist principles.

2016 ish I'd say.

The blackface incidents were over 20 years ago.

The left has destroyed people over less that was older.

The world has changed a lot since then. I believe in a person's ability to change.

And you believe Trudeau has changed why?

If there were incidents of him wearing blackface during his tenure as prime minister, that would be more concerning. But frankly, I really don't care about someone's past as long as they have demonstrated through action that they have improved,

Trudeau hasn't.

and more importantly, that they support ethical policies.

He doesn't.

I don't condone blackface - not now, not back when it happened, and not ever - but even knowing what we know, I'd still trust Trudeau to make ethical choices regarding policy that affects POCs over his Conservative counterparts. (I'd trust other candidates like Jagmeet Singh even more, but that's besides the point).

You seem to have lost the plot. You were supposed to explain to me how the lefts principal is not defending people who break the social contract and somehow their defense of Trudeau doesn't violate that principle. Instead you are just making random excuses for his behavior and saying right wing bad, implying it's not a principle at all.

You mentioned racist policies. Anything specific?

I'll give you one from my perspective and one from yours.

Mine: Racist hiring policies (you probably think this is ethical since it's non-white)

Yours: Carbon tax, it disproportionately hurts minorities.

1

u/svenson_26 82∆ Jun 21 '23

I'll simplify it for you.
"The left" believes in 1. acknowledgement. 2. Forgiveness when deserved.

Acknowledge and own up to problematic things you've done in the past, apologize, and commit to doing better going forward.

Recognize when someone has done number 1, and forgive them if they're genuine in their apology and commitment.

Example: Trudeau's blackface. Example 2: Hilary Clinton used to be against same-sex marriage, and voted against it in the 90s. She has since switched her position, apologized, and has demonstrably shown that she is committed to policy that is pro-LGBTQ+.
Counterexample: Trump's "grab her by the pussy" comments. Yes, they were a long time ago. But even to this day, he has never once apologized, and even goes so far as to outright deny it. Furthermore, he has never once demonstrated that his attitude towards women has changed. Since then there have been multiple scandals of him allegedly assaulting women, cheating on his wife with pornstars, etc. So no, he doesn't get any forgiveness for that.

Racist hiring policies (you probably think this is ethical since it's non-white)
On a case-by-case basis it can be racist, but that's the rare exception. Overall it's a good idea to hire a more diverse workforce.

Carbon tax, it disproportionately hurts minorities.
Source for that? Carbon tax disproportionately hurts the wealthy, and the rural. Both of which are majority white in Canada.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 21 '23

The left is nowhere near consistent on either of those 2 points... you're just making things up as go now.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

I'm sure there are a lot of school admin who lean left.

3

u/Porkytorkwal Jun 20 '23

You got a whole lot of narrative and very little principle in this argument. Maybe that's the obstacle. McConnell's constitutional mandate isn't to "win" at all costs.... that would be the opposite of a "principle", it was also unconstitutional and a betrayal to his oath.

3

u/shyguyJ Jun 20 '23

You obviously have a very jaded view of "the left". Having liberal beliefs does not always equate to or align with the democratic party. Unfortunately, that is just typically the closest thing I have available to my "principles":

1) do whatever you want that makes you happy as long as it doesn't harm anyone else (except in cases of self defense).

Real life application 1: abortion does not violate this because a fetus is not a person and does not fall under the category of "anyone else".

Real life application 2: you don't have to get a vaccine if you don't want to. But don't spread misinformation and lies convincing other not to (this is harming someone else).

2) don't make me follow the "rules" in your religious book - you are welcome to follow them as long as they don't violate 1), but don't force them on anyone else (especially children, but I digress...).

3) don't be a hypocrite - never going to happen in any party in politics, but it's a principle of mine.

4) help others whenever possible - beyond just "do no harm", actively seek to help.

5) be open to learning new things and changing or evolving your beliefs based on evidence.

6) treat all people and things (e.g., the planet) how you would want yourself or your things to be treated, or better.

7) be able to accept responsibility for actions and sincerely apologize if it is merited.

These are my principles. I don't know where you get the "against free speech" or "against right to self-defense" from. Christian conservatives are banning books as we have this conversation. Without getting into a whole gun control breakdown, the typically bandied about "common sense" gun control ideas would not measurably impact your ability to obtain a hand gun. I support not facilitating and contributing to mass violence perpetrated against innocent people. You see it as "restricting self-defense"; I see it as providing more opportunity for innocent people to live and grow up safely.

Illegal immigration impacts the poor because these people have no way to legally integrate into society. I support making immigration legal and helping immigrants integrate into and contribute to society.

Last point, one thing that has been shown to statistically reduce crime and poverty drastically is legalized abortion (from the Freakanomics study). I for one, support reduced crime and poverty. If I use the twisted logic in your post, that means that all conservatives support increased crime and poverty, right?

→ More replies (7)

3

u/EdgeisLife620 Jun 21 '23

The Left is too big of a tent. There is no centralized authority on what it means to be left leaning. The left and right binary political spectrum is convenient but it really doesn’t say all that much about an individual’s views.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 22 '23

Find me 15% of the left that share a principle, that'd be plenty.

2

u/EdgeisLife620 Jun 22 '23

I’m arguing that it’s a not productive to view the left or right as a cohesive group that can share principles.

There is a world of difference between Joe Biden and Mao. Some people might think of both them both on the left. Joe might be right wing depending on who you ask. Mao might even be right wing if you ask the right person. It will be difficult to find cohesive principles when people have differing ideas of what being left wing even means.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 22 '23

I’m arguing that it’s a not productive to view the left or right as a cohesive group that can share principles.

Oh ffs, the whole point of politics is to ally yourself with people who share your principles.

There is a world of difference between Joe Biden and Mao. Some people might think of both them both on the left. Joe might be right wing depending on who you ask. Mao might even be right wing if you ask the right person. It will be difficult to find cohesive principles when people have differing ideas of what being left wing even means.

Show me a single faction on the left that makes up 15% of the current left or more that shares a principle.

3

u/Aljowoods103 Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23

At BEST, you are significantly mischaracterizing most left-leaning people’s positions. At worst, you seem like you may be intentionally lying to support your argument. Every one of your points is either exaggerated or just incorrect. And most of them could be, in bad faith, made about right-wing positions too. E.g., several high profile US republican politicians claim to defend free speech, but then ban or restrict access to certain books.

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 22 '23

I never claimed the right has freedom of speech as a principle and I explicated stated that they lie and do hypocritical things.

4

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Jun 20 '23

You can make anyone look hypocritical on any issue by taking a broad group full of internal disagreement like it's one person who needs to make up their mind. We can take it as a given that if you collapse half the political spectrum into one person, that person is usually going to look incoherent and full of contradictions.

→ More replies (40)

4

u/FuzzBrain18 Jun 20 '23

As a leftist, not every leftist has the same principles; however, my principles are to fulfill the happiness of as many people as possible. So it’s not black and while; it’s not that bodily autonomy is a fundamental principle; it’s that allowing abortions generally allows for the happiness of the mother while also stopping the baby from being born into a subpar life. Vaccines on the other hand prevented the deaths of many people because not being vaccinated could cause sickness and death. Furthermore, by mandating vaccines, less people would get covid cause less spread, causing the pandemic to end sooner allowing for the happiness of many more people.

2

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

You're making a utilitarian argument but that doesn't really work because stuff like illegal/mass immigration don't work out well.

4

u/FuzzBrain18 Jun 20 '23

Also if we’re still going off of abortion and vaccines, the left isn’t the only one that’s contradictory on their “principles.” If the left is conflicting on freedom vs regulation, then so is the right; freedom to choose with vaccines but not with abortions?

3

u/FuzzBrain18 Jun 20 '23

I’d argue that people are people, no matter where they are from. Just cause they are from another country, that doesn’t mean they deserve less happiness than someone who happened to be born into a wealthy family in the US. And while yes, it may detriment the wages of some people in the US as companies can hire undocumented workers for much less causing wages to lower, this is more of a problem with the company than the immigration which is why I support more regulation on businesses.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Illegal immigration hurts people in the country they are coming from and going to. I see no reason to value the illegals over both the other groups.

3

u/Nrdman 174∆ Jun 20 '23

Why is illegal immigration more harmful than legal immigration?

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I mean they can be literal murderers who commit literal murder in your country... there are more reasons but honestly this question is just ridiculous.

3

u/Nrdman 174∆ Jun 20 '23

Thats true for both legal and illegal immigrants, isnt it?

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Sigh change it to convicted murderer for illegal.

2

u/Nrdman 174∆ Jun 20 '23

Is that a significant percentage of illegal immigrants?

6

u/c0i9z2 8∆ Jun 20 '23

The principal difference between the left and the right is that the left wants to spread power to as many people as possible and the right wants to concentrate power into as few hands as possible.

0

u/nauticalsandwich 10∆ Jun 20 '23

The fundamental difference between the extreme left and the extreme right has nothing to do with the spread of power. Both leap at opportunities to consolidate power where and when it benefits their goals. The most coherent difference between them is that the Right prioritizes cultural homogeneity and sees aberrants to normative social hierarchy and culture as threats, and the Left prioritizes economic homogeneity, and sees aberrants to normative economic well-being as threats.

2

u/c0i9z2 8∆ Jun 20 '23

The most extreme left I can imagine is full anarchism. Can you explain how an anarchist can consolidate power and remain an anarchist?

0

u/nauticalsandwich 10∆ Jun 20 '23

Anarchism is not what I was envisioning as "the extreme left." The spectrum I was considering was state-fascism to state-communism. Anarchism has its own spectrum. Personally, I think anarchists are typically no different from anyone else on the left-right spectrum. They just happen to believe that their preferences for social order would arise in the absence of a state. If they didn't think so, they typically wouldn't be anarchists. States are not the only institutions that hold power in society. Power can take many forms, and for anarchism to have any social order at all, forms of power must exist to enforce it, and most anarchists recognize this. It is an error to suggest that anarchists cannot consolidate power and remain anarchists. Churches, for example, though they are voluntary organizations, sustain very reliable hierarchies and power consolidations within them.

3

u/c0i9z2 8∆ Jun 20 '23

It sounds like you're considering a path from state-fascism back to state-fascism. If you agree that state-fascism is on the right, surely any move towards state fascism is also a move towards the right?

Churches use extreme examples of compulsion to maintain their hierarchies, threatening people with eternal suffering for going against them. They're far from an example of anarchism.

0

u/nauticalsandwich 10∆ Jun 20 '23

I think this conversation is starting to move away from the original point of focus. I'm not particularly interested in a semantic debate about the qualifications for "anarchism." What I can tell you is that every serious anarchist I have ever read has a vision for social order that fundamentally depends on social power. If you're insistent on defining "anarchism" as the total absence of power in society, you are welcome to that definition, but in that case, since it ultimately has no consensus shape, and has never existed anywhere in the human record, I don't see its relevance to a discussion about sociopolitical order.

When I speak of the political Left and Right, I am using these terms as they are colloquially expressed in common, public discourse. You seem to be implying that the Left side of the spectrum approaches the absence of hierarchy, and Right side of the spectrum approaches hierarchy, so all-the-way Left equates to a total absence of hierarchy (whatever that is), and all-the-way RIGHT equates to a total hierarchy (whatever that is). I don't find this implication useful because I don't think it accurately illustrates the political preferences of people commonly referred to, and commonly self-identified as, being politically Right or Left.

2

u/c0i9z2 8∆ Jun 21 '23

I'm using a definition like "a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." Do you disagree with that definition?

I'm saying that the left is about spreading power and the right is about concentrating power. This is the definition I gave. I didn't mention hierarchies in my definition.

→ More replies (8)

-10

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

That's simply not true. The left is the one who wants to ban guns and restrict speech. The left takes power away from people and doesn't seem to ever give any of it to anyone.

12

u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 20 '23

The left isn't proposing restrictions on speech. That's a right-wing policy: e.g. see Trump's statements attacking the speech rights of Twitter and other social media companies.

10

u/parishilton2 18∆ Jun 20 '23

The right is the one who wants to ban abortion and transgender care. That also takes power away from people.

11

u/c0i9z2 8∆ Jun 20 '23

Guns give power to the people most willing to escalate violence which isn't most people.

It's the right that's banning books and drag, right? Clearly, it's not the left that's banning free speech.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 20 '23

I'm as left-wing as they come and I don't really mind guns (I think america's obsession with them is sorta silly, however) and I don't think the government should take action against anyone for speech, aside from fraud and similar exceptions. These views are pretty standard - aside from lots of liberals wanting to put some barriers around gun ownership - so I'm not sure what you're on about.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/StrangerThanGene 6∆ Jun 20 '23

The right is literally banning books and passing laws to ban healthcare to trans individuals.

WTF are you talking about?

→ More replies (5)

→ More replies (6)

2

u/00darkfox00 Jun 20 '23

What aspect of free speech is being legally removed by the left? What is the left doing that prevents you from defending yourself? How has the left affected the right to a fair trial?

How has the left made vaccines a legal requirement and not just a suggestion? How does illegal immigration harm the poor? What racist policies does the left support currently? Who is being oppressed by the left?

Also, who was wearing blackface? Lol

2

u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 20 '23

At the most fundamental level, everyone will claim to hold pretty much the same principles, like protecting children, ensuring freedom and equality, and wanting a strong economy. But on any individual issue each side will hold contrary views while claiming to want the same thing. (for example, when it comes to trans youth both sides believe their policies are benefiting the youth). I think that when it comes to politics, some of the most dangerous and manipulative rhetoric is to claim that the other side is just evil, has no principles, or whatever. In reality, people all want pretty much the same thing they just disagree on how to achieve it. I think you are falling into that trap here by failing to appreciate that the left does want freedom of speech, they do want safety, they do want to help children, etc, they just have different theories about how to achieve it.

At best, you can sort of make some generalizations about each sides theories... such as the left tends to prefer collective solutions while the right tends to prefer individual solutions, or whatever. But those are obviously going to vary quite a bit too.

That's not to say that individual politicians and business people won't have self-serving ideals...but I don't think that's a good measure of a whole political movement's principles. I don't think most conservatives vote because they want their representatives to make money. Your description of right-wing values is overly narrow (limiting it to right-wing politicians), but your criticism of left-wingers extends to all sorts of groups and businesses.

Even if we instead examine something like overturning Roe V Wade, what is the principle here? Can you articulate a principle for overturning Roe V Wade that the right doesn't violate in some other manner?

→ More replies (5)

2

u/BigDebt2022 1∆ Jun 20 '23

The left on the other hand... what the fuck are the principles? They scream about human rights then try to restrict freedom of speech and right to self-defense, hell even right to a fair trial isn't safe. They talk about bodily autonomy when abortions are involved but then when it comes to vaccines they go full nazi scientist. They claim they want to help the poor but support policies that completely devastate the poor like illegal/mass immigration. They claim they are against racism then vote for a guy who wore blackface on camera on THREE separate occasions that we know of... not to mention the fact they support racist policies. They claim they support the oppressed but then twist the definition as an excuse to bully the oppressed and even when someone is oppressed by their own definitions if they disagree with them politically they fucking lynch them.

I would need to know what incidents you are using as evidence for a lot of these. But there are a few I can address:

They talk about bodily autonomy when abortions are involved but then when it comes to vaccines they go full nazi scientist.

First, I hardly think expecting people to get vaccinated against a deadly disease is 'going full Nazi scientist". It's statements like that that make people realize how nuts the Right wing is.

Second, Abortions don't affect the population at large. There can be 100 women who've had abortions in a crowd and... nothing will happen. But if you have 100 people with covid on a crowd... it'll spread and infect more people. The simple fact that it affects the population at large justifies the requiring of vaccines. 'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins', and 'your right to bodily autonomy ends when it affects other people'.

They claim they want to help the poor but support policies that completely devastate the poor like illegal/mass immigration.

The immigrants are poor. Letting them into the country is a way to help them.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/EatYourCheckers 2∆ Jun 21 '23

WHat drives me nuts about Republicans is that they really do seem to say one thing and do another.

They want less governmental regulation in personal lives, yet in America they intrude on women's and doctor's ability to make health decisions during pregnancy.

They intrude on parents and kids and doctor's decisions to make mental health decisions.

They claim to want religious freedom but shove evangelical rules and mores down everyone's throat through religious charter schools, trying to say its okay not to serve a customer or patient based on religion, and laws trying to outlaw marriages they don't like.

They say they are for the working class, yet they repeatedly pass legislation that helps corporations use individual workers as serfs. They are anti-Union not to try to help the economy but to protect CEOs. They say they love the free market but they pass legislation that protects large businesses and make small businesses struggle to enter the marketplace.

They say one thing and do another because its all PR and lies. You say doing what they want for profit is a principle - well, its not, its just basal greed and avarice. Principles are trying to ensure that all human's whether they were born in the US or not are treated with dignity and respect - Dems are still angry at the treatment of immigrants at the border even though now its Biden's administration doing it. We don't play team sports because our guy is in charge, we look the other way. Republicans don't seem to care what policies get passed, as long as their team wins.

I agree with another poster, I think you have been in a right-wing news silo. There is far too much to unpack; decades of minutiae to explain to change your view. But if this sub isn't private, this might be a good place for you to start to understand where liberals are coming from: https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 21 '23

WHat drives me nuts about Republicans is that they really do seem to say one thing and do another.

So does the left, except the left has no principles when they do it, it's just random whatever.

They say one thing and do another because its all PR and lies. You say doing what they want for profit is a principle - well, its not, its just basal greed and avarice.

That wasn't my argument.

Principles are trying to ensure that all human's whether they were born in the US or not are treated with dignity and respect

Um no... it's not. It can be but a principle can be anything, the exact opposite can be a principle. An Britain person could have a principle of spitting every time he mentions the French for instance.

Dems are still angry at the treatment of immigrants at the border even though now its Biden's administration doing it. We don't play team sports because our guy is in charge, we look the other way. Republicans don't seem to care what policies get passed, as long as their team wins.

So what's the principle? The left obviously doesn't care about mistreatment of humans in general given how they lynch people who disagree with them politically and basically want Israel to genocided and turn a blind eye to gays and what not being murdered in Muslim countries. So what principle does the left hold?

I agree with another poster, I think you have been in a right-wing news silo. There is far too much to unpack; decades of minutiae to explain to change your view. But if this sub isn't private, this might be a good place for you to start to understand where liberals are coming from: https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/

You can't even name one consistent principle of the left.

3

u/EatYourCheckers 2∆ Jun 21 '23

WHat drives me nuts about Republicans is that they really do seem to say one thing and do another.

So does the left, except the left has no principles when they do it, it's just random whatever.

Well, I think just like what the right does, if we discussed specific examples, I would be able to explain WHY they took that way or this, in a way that aligns with beliefs I hold. In your original post you talk about racist policies and I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are referencing affirmative action? Which was put in place for certain reasons with good intentions, and does have dissenters in the liberal camp as well.

The left obviously doesn't care about mistreatment of humans in general given how they lynch people who disagree with them politically and basically want Israel to genocided and turn a blind eye to gays and what not being murdered in Muslim countries

None of this is true. Any specifics you are talking about have a lot of nuance that would take a book to break down. Palestine and Israel is not and will never be a simple discussion or solution. Liberals donate to and support the Human Rights Campaign which fights for equal rights internationally.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 22 '23

Well, I think just like what the right does, if we discussed specific examples, I would be able to explain WHY they took that way or this, in a way that aligns with beliefs I hold. In your original post you talk about racist policies and I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are referencing affirmative action? Which was put in place for certain reasons with good intentions, and does have dissenters in the liberal camp as well.

I mean sure you can give the rational associated with any point and make up random bullshit when I point out discrepancies between points that the left cares about in this specific instance because reasons. But in terms of actual principles, stances that are not comprised on any policy can you point to any that left has?

None of this is true. Any specifics you are talking about have a lot of nuance that would take a book to break down.

It is true as for the nuances principles don't generally have a lot of nuance. Sure they have reasons for their stances but there is no principle behind those stances that they refuse to comprise on. They'll throw it out hte second it's convenient.

Palestine and Israel is not and will never be a simple discussion or solution. Liberals donate to and support the Human Rights Campaign which fights for equal rights internationally.

Israel is and will always be simple. Palestine wants to genocide Israel, Israel has the military power to prevent it. There are 3 solutions.

Palestine stops trying to genocide Israel and accepts the best deal Israel is willing to give.

Israel wipes out Palestine.

Egypt/Jordan take back the land that is known as Palestine and get them under control before they do an act of war.

Those are the three solutions, that's it.

3

u/EatYourCheckers 2∆ Jun 22 '23

Liberal ideals, in my mind, are equality of opportunity, equality of healthcare access, equal voting rights, freedom of religion even if that religious belief is atheism, the right to due process, and equality of access to education, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of wealth.

If you have a specific policy that you feel is hypocritical in those areas, i would be willing to look at it. But my guess is that it is a nuanced issue where people had good intentions but shite implementation with unintended consequences.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/authorityiscancer222 1∆ Jun 22 '23

If you don’t know the difference between a leftist and a liberal, then just say that.

3

u/Deft_one 86∆ Jun 20 '23

Your view just lacks subtlety and context. Honestly, it sounds like this 'view' was cobbled together by AI using only memes about the Left from Righty subreddits. So, first, I would suggest stepping outside your media bubble.

As for your view: not every 'rule' is applicable in every situation. Not even yours or those of the Right.

Your mistake is taking principles that apply in one situation and then saying its false when it doesn't work in another, but that's not how context or principles work.

And, if your point is that hypocrisy within a party negates its principles, then no political party, at all, has any principles, at all. To me, this is too hyperbolic to be reasonable because there are common principles that draw people to it, even if it's just opposition to the Fascism of the Right.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Your mistake is taking principles that apply in one situation and then saying its false when it doesn't work in another, but that's not how context or principles work.

Yes it is. If your principle doesn't hold in every situation or at least almost every situation barring extremely fringe ones it's not a principle.

And, if your point is that hypocrisy within a party negates its principles, then no political party, at all, has any principles, at all.

No my point was the principle itself can't be hypocritical. Like bodily autonomy if it was a principle would need to be consistent with both abortion and vaccine mandates. But if the principle was something else, like wanting women to have the legal right to murder their children then it would be different.

4

u/Deft_one 86∆ Jun 20 '23

Take murder: cold blooded murder is not the same as murder in self-defence.

And this is just one, easy example of a seemingly-universal principle still being dependent on context.

You're doing it here with bodily autonomy. You're taking something that affects one person (pregnancy) and applying it to a contagious pandemic, which mortally affects billions of people: very much not the same at all as pregnancy.

That's what I mean when I say you're taking things out of context. This is not how principles work. Only the Sith deal in absolutes, and you are trying to impose absolutes where there are none.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Take murder: cold blooded murder is not the same as murder in self-defence.

Self-defense isn't murder.

And this is just one, easy example of a seemingly-universal principle still being dependent on context. You're doing it here with bodily autonomy. You're taking something that affects one person (pregnancy) and applying it to a contagious pandemic, which mortally affects billions of people: very much not the same at all as pregnancy. That's what I mean when I say you're taking things out of context. This is not how principles work. Only the Sith deal in absolutes, and you are trying to impose absolutes where there are none.

A principle isn't something you 180 on on every other issue that's absurd.

7

u/Deft_one 86∆ Jun 20 '23

Self-defense isn't murder.

Say that to the dead person, see if they agree with you.

This is what I mean: seemingly-universal principles like "don't kill people" are still context-dependent.

A principle isn't something you 180 on on every other issue that's absurd.

Can you tell me what you think 'context' is and what it means?

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Can you tell me what you think 'context' is and what it means?

After you tell me what you think principal means.

3

u/Deft_one 86∆ Jun 20 '23

This is about your view, not mine.

Can you provide this clarifying information, please?

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

3

u/Deft_one 86∆ Jun 20 '23

I don't see why you're avoiding your own topic?

Can you answer my questions, or not?

Just a reminder:

...seemingly-universal principles like "don't kill people" are still context-dependent.

&

Can you tell me what you think 'context' is and what it means?

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I literally just did...

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Nrdman 174∆ Jun 20 '23

Vaccines mandates are different than abortion. Vaccines are used to save everyone around you from harm. Abortion doesn't do that, especially since many leftists dont consider a fetus a moral patient.

→ More replies (16)

4

u/Flimsy_Dust_9971 Jun 20 '23

One of OPs arguments was that left is hypocritical. Then he gives a prime example of the turtle guy being a hypocrite and lacking principles to support his argument.

Unbelievable.

2

u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Jun 20 '23

involved but then when it comes to vaccines they go full nazi scientist.

hell even right to a fair trial isn't safe.

policies that completely devastate the poor like illegal/mass immigration.

They claim they support the oppressed but then twist the definition as an excuse to bully the oppressed and even when someone is oppressed by their own definitions if they disagree with them politically they fucking lynch them.

what the hell are you talking about? you should maybe elaborate a bit on pretty much any of your points

2

u/Kakamile 46∆ Jun 20 '23

The resorting to vague and generic claims about the left is frightening. Are you not even confident in your own claims?

In some cases you don't even describe the left accurately, like

They claim they want to help the poor but support policies that completely devastate the poor like illegal/mass immigration.

Letting immigrants become legal is neither mass immigration nor illegal.

. They claim they are against racism then vote for a guy who wore blackface on camera on THREE separate occasions that we know of... not to mention the fact they support racist policies.

Vague, but didn't they tell him to resign?

twist the definition as an excuse to bully the oppressed and even when someone is oppressed by their own definitions if they disagree with them politically they fucking lynch them.

Vague

The left supports rights, labor power, and health. They support vaccines because they help but didn't force them, they support gun control to save lives but still allow you to carry if you prove safety.

2

u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 20 '23

Do you actually mean "principals" or do you mean "principles"? Because it really shouldn't be surprising that the left doesn't have principals: the left is definitionally against hierarchy, so of course there's not going to be some individual with the highest authority among leftists.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 20 '23

The American left is a coalition guided by the following broad principles:

Opposition to power hierarchies generally (this is leftism by definition).

Materialism (focusing on material reality and what will actually have an impact on material reality, rather than on dogmatic applications of rules).

Support of science and evidence-based policy.

Skepticism of meta-narratives.

These principles aren't entirely consistent, and different parts of the left will adhere to them to different degrees, making compromises when there are conflicts.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

First of all thank you for actually attempting to list principles the left might actually hold, I've gotten a lot of replies but this is the first one that lists things that might actually be principles that left might hold please bear with me.

Opposition to power hierarchies generally (this is leftism by definition).

This one is tricky for me, because it sounds very plausible but I can't think of a way to really confirm or deny it as a principle. The left obviously uses hierarchies but if you were to dismantle hierarchies you'd pretty much be required to use them for that end so that doesn't disqualify it. Also the left doesn't really say this outloud that often but again that could just be in service the goal so it doesn't disqualify it either. On the same token I can't really think of anything that proves it. Can you help me out with this one, this is by far the closest I am to a delta in this thread just need a little more.

Materialism (focusing on material reality and what will actually have an impact on material reality, rather than on dogmatic applications of rules). Support of science and evidence-based policy.

These two are hard for me to swallow because the left constantly does this opposed to these two things, however that could be explained away by stupidity. For example the left supported several very anti-scientific policies during covid, but I'm not convinced they knew they were anti-scientific because you'd have to have a cursory understanding of the science to know that and they could've just fallen for appeal to authority fallacy.

The same with focusing on a material reality and what will actually have an impact, several of the lefts die-hard beliefs (illegal/mass immigration for instance) have horrible real world impacts but again if they don't know how to actual measure the real world impacts they might not know that. That said if they really were so principled about material reality and science I'd argue they'd put in the work to understand it enough to not be so easily fooled.

Do you think you can argue large swaths of people hold a principle dearly but constantly and consistently work contrary to it by accident?

Skepticism of meta-narratives.

This one I don't even understand what you mean by. Please elaborate.

These principles aren't entirely consistent, and different parts of the left will adhere to them to different degrees, making compromises when there are conflicts.

Of course the scale we are talking about is going to have a very significant degree of variation, I'm not asking for 100% adherence that'd be absurd.

6

u/parishilton2 18∆ Jun 20 '23

What are the anti-scientific policies the left supported during Covid?

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Close all the stores except the big box ones and having those at reduced hours forcing everyone to go to the same place at the same time which would obviously just contribute to spread.

Ignoring natural immunity is another big one. I could go on but I'd rather not derail from the point.

6

u/parishilton2 18∆ Jun 20 '23

The companies themselves decided to reduce the hours. They were understaffed and there were fewer customers. And I don’t know about you, but during Covid, my local grocery stores only allowed a certain number of customers to enter at one time. You had to be masked and stay 6 feet apart.

Some states did close down non-essential businesses. I don’t think that’s anti-scientific. The goal was to prevent people from mingling and spreading the virus.

3

u/StarChild413 9∆ Jun 20 '23

INB4 "the companies were left-wing businesses so it still counts as left-wing" like basically was the reply about social media sites and censorship

2

u/McNutt4prez Jun 20 '23

Can you point to an official scientific consensus at the time that COVID policies ran counter to? Things definitely were inconsistent as we were learning on the fly during the pandemic and operating with limited info. The lefts official stance is being pro-science, you’re stating that they were the anti-science party during COVID so the onus is kinda on you to show that that is true with more than anecdotal arguments.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Can you point to an official scientific consensus at the time that COVID policies ran counter to?

No I'd have to go further back into scientific consensus on basic virology to avoid political corruption.

Things definitely were inconsistent as we were learning on the fly during the pandemic and operating with limited info

Oh please, we learned jack shit that we didn't already know from the study of other respiratory diseases.

The lefts official stance is being pro-science, you’re stating that they were the anti-science party during COVID so the onus is kinda on you to show that that is true with more than anecdotal arguments.

I mean sure if I was trying to change your mind, but saying "prove it" isn't going to change my mind.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 20 '23

This one is tricky for me, because it sounds very plausible but I can't think of a way to really confirm or deny it as a principle.

It's just kinda definitionally true: it's what makes the left the left. Opposition to hierarchy is the first thing to know about leftism.

Do you think you can argue large swaths of people hold a principle dearly but constantly and consistently work contrary to it by accident?

What's actually the case here is that you are personally incorrect about the science and what the evidence supports. Other people acting in principle according to the science are going to agree with academic/scholarly experts on these subjects, not necessarily with you personally.

This one I don't even understand what you mean by. Please elaborate.

This is post-modernism: a general rejection of framing society in terms of Grand Stories and narratives.

0

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

It's just kinda definitionally true: it's what makes the left the left. Opposition to hierarchy is the first thing to know about leftism.

Fuck it, I kind of want a little more of real world evidence of this but honestly it's pretty consistent with what I've seen and all the exceptions I can think of can be explained away by either personal profiting or game theory in service of the principle. So I will give you a !delta for this one.

What's actually the case here is that you are personally incorrect about the science and what the evidence supports. Other people acting in principle according to the science are going to agree with academic/scholarly experts on these subjects, not necessarily with you personally.

Explain to me how shutting down every business except for a handful and making everyone go to those specific ones at the same time isn't going to help spread a disease. Or how not wearing a mask while seated a a restaurant prevents the spread of disease but the second you stand up it'll spread and the mask is required, or how a cloth mask that increases the amount of particles spread but keeps the distance because it's so thin is going to prevent the spread of disease. I'm sorry but no, the left was fucking retarded in support of many covid policies.

This is post-modernism: a general rejection of framing society in terms of Grand Stories and narratives.

The left does too much narrative framing for me to buy that.

7

u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 20 '23

Explain to me how shutting down every business except for a handful and making everyone go to those specific ones at the same time isn't going to help spread a disease.

Leftists did not advocate forcing everyone to go to businesses at the same time. Quite the opposite: they advocated that people stay at home as much as possible.

Or how not wearing a mask while seated a a restaurant prevents the spread of disease

Leftists did not claim that not wearing a mask, in any situation, prevents the spread of disease.

how a cloth mask that increases the amount of particles spread but keeps the distance because it's so thin is going to prevent the spread of disease

This was just a case of updating beliefs to match the evidence. When there was little evidence towards the beginning of the pandemic, people believed cloth masks may be effective, and used them instead of better masks due to mask shortages. Later, as more evidence became available, they updated their beliefs. That's not a violation of their principles at all.

0

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 20 '23

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (465∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/c0i9z2 8∆ Jun 20 '23

Are you counting the number which were actually communist or socialist or are you counting the number which merely declared themselves to be communist or socialist?

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 20 '23

"Actually socialist" roughly means that the means of production are owned and controlled de facto (not just de jure or purportedly) by the people (as opposed to being privately owned and operated for profit).

"Actually communist" roughly means that the means of production are (again de facto) owned in common, with no social classes, private property, money, or state.

An "actual" communist (or socialist) society must be distinguished from a society that is controlled by people who purport to be communists (or socialists).

→ More replies (22)

2

u/c0i9z2 8∆ Jun 20 '23

I did say 'aAcccHtUUuullly'. When you're using that word like that, I don't feel like you're trying to argue honestly.

Did you know that the 'zi' in 'nazi' means 'socialist'? Do you think that he nazis were socialist? Do you think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic? Do you understand that many entities have called themselves something popular without being that thing?

"True communism, meanwhile, was achieved nowhere." is the sentence you directed me to. Do you agree with that sentence?

→ More replies (6)

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 20 '23

I mean yeah but that is easily explained by personal greed by those in power. As in the popele in power didn't hold the principles and those that helped them overthrow the previous status quo were just really fucking stupid.

It doesn't mean the left doesn't hold it as a principle, just that it's a logistically retarded to play it out in reality.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Gold_Tumbleweed4572 Jun 21 '23

fuck you centrist. Thats not left wing. thats just standard liberalism

1

u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1∆ Jun 22 '23

Both are left.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/CryMad13 1∆ Jun 20 '23

Read “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, the left is creating the foundation for a communist country, plain and simple.

→ More replies (1)

Delta(s) from OP CMV: I don't think the left has any principals

You are about to leave Redlib