648
What would you do?
(reddthat.com)
Its rhetorical. You take him to the beach!
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
648 points (98.9% liked)
> Greentext
7547 readers
142 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How crazy the Left is? Yes because the Left is so crazy with their acceptance of people and their crazy crusade for human rights and equality, tf is wrong with that? Or is the left so crazy because they want to see our basic human needs met through social programs? Real nutty that is. /s
Maybe you should consider that it's the religious right who are the crazy ones trying to force us to fit their mold that is based on ancient books written by men that worship invisible beings, while also opposing human rights, equality, and the state social safety nets.
Or maybe it's the wealthy right and centrists who are the crazy ones with their endless pursuit of selfishness and greed, and the corruption, poverty, and income inequality their greedy selfish pursuits generate.
You're literally blaming the Left for the insanity of the Right, quite literally mass victim blaming, good job. ๐
No. I'll give you the real explaination a lot of people have with the left, I hope you hear it but i doubt you will. This issue is the lefts inability to have a conversation with someone about a wide range of topic. The inability for a person to not hold an extreme position, 100% without question is unacceptable to a lot of people on the left that gets in the way of issues like raising taxes.
This can arise from many issues. Maybe someone on the left will say "We should have an open border policy. Being born in a different country isn't a persons fault, anyone should be able to go anywhere in the world with no issues" then if you raise, cultural or economic issues you get the equivalent of "reeeeeee you're just a racist. Why don't you fuck off racist reeeeee". Or someone who has gone through 10 years of male puberty shouldn't play sport with women because it isn't fair. That topic is not allowed you're just a transphobe obviously. When you say something should be avaliable to all people in a country irrelevant of sex or race. Then the left say you don't understand some weird metric to determining why one race or sex should get something at some level above another sex or race. Then the whole million different types of genders, but gender doesn't exist, then the inability to group things by sex which is something both sides agree on. The left quite frequently talk about the far right. But I think the far left a lot of people have an issue with but they are strung in with the left and it's bad for that movement.
It's not the lefts views on economics. For a lot policies I am very left, in fact Im probably more left than most people. But how that plays out on an individual basis talking to a left leaning person is like talking to someone mental. They hold views devoid of reasoning and then just resort to attacking a person. Whereas when you talk to someone on the right it's more "I think taxes should be lower so people keep more of their hard earned cash"
[me] "I disagree because I think the government should take more money and use that to do things that the public cannot, like build infrastructure or equal education for all"
"The government is inefficient. I get what you are saying but I disagree. If I have worked hard for my money and I choose to spend a lot of that on giving my kid an education then I should be allowed to, it's my money. State schools suck and I want my kid in a private. If people want to go to higher education then they can get a loan. I'm not responsible if someone wants to go to uni for a shitty degree. If its worth while then they will make money back and pay off the loan. If its not worthwhile I wont go and waste theirs or anyone elses money"
Me " I disagree but it is interesting to have a conversation with someone with different view and I see why you think that"
Right wing" it was nice having a conversation with you too"
Literally never talked to a right wing person that brought religion up once so I personally have no idea what you are talking about and that has absolutely nothing to do with my view I was talking about. Other people have different experience I'm sure, but I've never seen it.
As for your last point I'm not. I'm saying the left are isolating themselves.
The issue is we need more parties. I mean this as for the people.We need a party that is left wing economically but need a party that is right wing for what a lot of people unhelpfully group as "common sense issues" or we will just end up with right wing policies.
Blah blah blah blah, okay i get it, you're so biased against the left that you in your flawed logic think that every single one of us lefties is incapable of comprehending context and nuance, a complaint I commonly make about my conservative father, and which you seem to suffer from as well. Additionally you're basically just bitching, at length, about the ever present vocal minority, the Righties have them too, except that they seem to be in control of the GOP now, meanwhile the Dems are lead by centrists, go figure.
Case in point:
This is where you're missing nuance and context yourself, you don't realize that our democracy isn't designed for "more parties", and I put that in quotes because there are already more parties available, but we exist and participate in an adversarial democracy, where it's two parties fighting an ever drifting balance, this was how our founding fathers designed our democracy to work. The nuance in this is also that, for a new party to replace one of the existing primary parties they would have to both achieve a level of popularity and funding.
Now with that said I think we're very close to that happening with the GOP/MAGA Party, if Trump loses they will face a strong possibility of collapse, and if this happens without a civil war I picture a further left party rising and the Democrats shifting back to being the conservative party, like they were prior to the civil rights era and the Southern Strategy.
Haha I was right! You're missing pretty much all of what I'm saying.
This quote is great because I was just complaining about how people use this as an argument. Which I think is worthless. I think something like STV is a much better system than what the founding fathers came up with. Just because the founding fathers said something doesn't mean it is the best way. If fact saying because the founding fathers did anything in itself is meaningless and not an argument for what should be done.
Yet mechanisms, beauracrasies, and laws based on those concepts exist and govern our lives, so are you naive, or just out of touch with reality?
I'm all for things changing for things changing for the better, I agree with you about why base things on what people from an archaic era have to say about how to deal with modern life, but let's not fool ourselves, we can't just make these changes overnight, especially not without violence, or the threat of violence, there have to he gradual and systemic changes made, risks to be considered, and plans to be made and implemented, which all takes time, and that's generally how things are already going, and have been since women's sufferage began here.
A lot of the current problem also stems from things from the Confederate era, where we let the wound of the first civil war fester and flourish, entities like the John Birch Society, Daughters of the Confederacy, and other Confederate based political groups continue to pull at that divide, and yearn for "the good old days" aka slavery and gays being shoved back into the closet, snd these folks seem to have massive influence over right wing politics. Pair that with the systemic issues black folks face, makes for quite the powder keg.
I completely agree with you on STV, that or Ranked Choice voting should be the way forward, that would raise the quality of candidates.