LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Jack Thomas Lang]

There's the left, the liberals, and the fascists.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That's incredibly reductive. Even the political compass is better than that.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

They don't need to promote outright socialism to be leftist. The idea that socialism is the be-all and end-all of left-wing politics is a cancer that needs to drop dead.

They're on the left of the center, not the left. The notion that politics is a line that can be seperated into two equal halves is the real cancer.

There's the left, the liberals, and the fascists.

Where does right-libertarianism fall in that?

[Ostroeuropa]

They're on the left of the center, not the left. The notion that politics is a line that can be seperated into two equal halves is the real cancer.

There's the left, the liberals, and the fascists.

Where does right-libertarianism fall in that?

Liberals.

[The Wasatch]

There's the left, the liberals, and the fascists.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That's incredibly reductive. Even the political compass is better than that.

Yeah. That is really extreme and quite prejudiced.

[Ostroeuropa]

There's the left, the liberals, and the fascists.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That's incredibly reductive. Even the political compass is better than that.

The degree of authoritarianism with which one pursues those goals is a separate matter. One is a capitalist regardless of whether they impose it through force or through consensus.

[Cekoviu]

My results:
https://leftvalues.github.io/results.ht ... 2.9&f=15.0

I'm more curious about this: front, range, or county?

[Ostroeuropa]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That's incredibly reductive. Even the political compass is better than that.

Yeah. That is really extreme and quite prejudiced.

I don't have sympathy for liberals who are butthurt that their hegenomy means they've lost their identity as liberals and are forced to pretend they aren't liberals in order to oppose other liberals.

Trotsky didn't go around pretending he wasn't a socialist because he hated Stalin, so why modern right wingers pretend they aren't liberals is beyond me. Gaslighting the left methinks so they can pretend we have proper opposition parties rather than one ruling ideology with minor management disagreements.

The overwhelming majority of republicans are, simply put, Liberals. That's the historical fact of the matter.

[Pacomia]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That's incredibly reductive. Even the political compass is better than that.

The degree of authoritarianism with which one pursues those goals is a separate matter. One is a capitalist regardless of whether they impose it through force or through consensus.

Unrelated, but I’ve been wondering this for a couple months now.

That image in your signature, why is it there?

[The Wasatch]

Yeah. That is really extreme and quite prejudiced.

I don't have sympathy for liberals who are butthurt that their hegenomy means they've lost their identity as liberals and are forced to pretend they aren't liberals in order to oppose other liberals.

Trotsky didn't go around pretending he wasn't a socialist because he hated Stalin, so why modern right wingers pretend they aren't liberals is beyond me. Gaslighting the left methinks so they can pretend we have proper opposition parties rather than one ruling ideology with minor management disagreements.

The overwhelming majority of republicans are, simply put, Liberals. That's the historical fact of the matter.

But calling all right-wingers fascists? That is ridiculous and counterproductive.

[Ostroeuropa]

The degree of authoritarianism with which one pursues those goals is a separate matter. One is a capitalist regardless of whether they impose it through force or through consensus.

Unrelated, but I’ve been wondering this for a couple months now.

That image in your signature, why do you have it?

Because it's fucking funny mate. It's a prime example of externalizing an internal bias and good evidence of feminism not really being anything more but a set of rhetorical tools and rationalizations for processing information and producing the same conclusion over and over.

You know how if you're severely depressed everything is evidence that you're a bad person and people don't like you?

For a feminist, their ideology is a series of rationalizations and tools to process information, a lens through which to view reality, and can be applied to literally any scenario and come up with the same response, i've tried dude, i've gone out to find obscure issues and pitched stats at them and asked them to explain them and they come up with women are oppressed and patriarchy and rationalize how the facts I just showed them prove it. Then I ask what if the stats were the opposite and they usually say they couldn't be because blah blah, then I tell them I lied and in fact the stats are the opposite and I was fucking with them, so can they now explain the real stats.

They either throw a tantrum and storm off, or just... use their rationalization process again, requiring an extra step (Often, "Internalized misogyny" or one like it), an extra tool, to forge those facts into the same conclusion they have predetermined they must reach. It proves there is no reality you can confront them with that will change their mind, because it's not based in reality. It's all in their fucking heads. Just like a depressed person and their faulty information processing.


The pic is a hilarious example because it's such a striking one. Applying feminist rationalizations, one can turn literally any situation into the same "results".

I.E;

Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.

Followed by;

Functionally that makes it entirely fucking worthless as an academic discipline and political ideology. Its only use is as a way of determining what any given woman wants at any particular time, and that's where it's "Successes" have come from (The coincidence of feminism being merely a means of women rationalizing how the things they want are fair and men who deny giving it to them are evil means that where women want something fair and men denying it are evil, it will have successes entirely independent of the validity of the argument or the logic behind it.) That runs immediately into problems when you try and actually deliver equality though, especially where that equality goes against womens biases and interests. Worse than worthless, it is a means of prioritizing women over men through epistemic injustice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationali ... psychology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

^
EXTREMELY relevant.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't have sympathy for liberals who are butthurt that their hegenomy means they've lost their identity as liberals and are forced to pretend they aren't liberals in order to oppose other liberals.

Trotsky didn't go around pretending he wasn't a socialist because he hated Stalin, so why modern right wingers pretend they aren't liberals is beyond me. Gaslighting the left methinks so they can pretend we have proper opposition parties rather than one ruling ideology with minor management disagreements.

The overwhelming majority of republicans are, simply put, Liberals. That's the historical fact of the matter.

But calling all right-wingers fascists? That is ridiculous and counterproductive.

Most right wingers are liberals. It's not my fault they've actively denied their own history.

[Philjia]

They're on the left of the center, not the left. The notion that politics is a line that can be seperated into two equal halves is the real cancer.

There's the left, the liberals, and the fascists.

Wait, what’s the difference between leftism and liberalism again?

Left wing politics is generally concerned with reducing wealth inequality, and flattening or ensuring the meritocracy of both political and corporate hierarchies. Liberal politics is generally concerned with personal freedom and legal equality. People can be both liberal and left wing, or one or the other. There is also an important divide in liberalism between those subscribing to utilitarian ethics (the good of the many decides right and wrong) and those subscribing to deontological ethics (actions are inherently right or wrong); those supporting utilitarianism tend to be social liberals and support more economically left policies and believe government intervention can improve social cohesion (EG. the left of the Democratic Party), while those supporting deontology tend to be classical liberals and support more economically right policies and reject government interference in society (EG. the right of the Democratic Party). Liberals prefer to view society as a collection of individuals, while non-liberals on the right and left tend to see social classes, communities, cultures, and so on. Many left wing people reject the label "liberal" due to it's association with capitalist liberals, but in truth a significant number of them will be inspired by the same principles as utilitarian liberals.

[Nakena]

Wait, what’s the difference between leftism and liberalism again?

Left wing politics is generally concerned with reducing wealth inequality, and flattening or ensuring the meritocracy of both political and corporate hierarchies. Liberal politics is generally concerned with personal freedom and legal equality. People can be both liberal and left wing, or one or the other. There is also an important divide in liberalism between those subscribing to utilitarian ethics (the good of the many decides right and wrong) and those subscribing to deontological ethics (actions are inherently right or wrong); those supporting utilitarianism tend to be social liberals and support more economically left policies and believe government intervention can improve social cohesion (EG. the left of the Democratic Party), while those supporting deontology tend to be classical liberals and support more economically right policies and reject government interference in society (EG. the right of the Democratic Party). Liberals prefer to view society as a collection of individuals, while non-liberals on the right and left tend to see social classes, communities, cultures, and so on. Many left wing people reject the label "liberal" due to it's association with capitalist liberals, but in truth a significant number of them will be inspired by the same principles as utilitarian liberals.

What about right-wingers then?

But calling all right-wingers fascists? That is ridiculous and counterproductive.

Most right wingers are liberals. It's not my fault they've actively denied their own history.

So they are not really right-wing just being harsh liberals?

[Ostroeuropa]

Left wing politics is generally concerned with reducing wealth inequality, and flattening or ensuring the meritocracy of both political and corporate hierarchies. Liberal politics is generally concerned with personal freedom and legal equality. People can be both liberal and left wing, or one or the other. There is also an important divide in liberalism between those subscribing to utilitarian ethics (the good of the many decides right and wrong) and those subscribing to deontological ethics (actions are inherently right or wrong); those supporting utilitarianism tend to be social liberals and support more economically left policies and believe government intervention can improve social cohesion (EG. the left of the Democratic Party), while those supporting deontology tend to be classical liberals and support more economically right policies and reject government interference in society (EG. the right of the Democratic Party). Liberals prefer to view society as a collection of individuals, while non-liberals on the right and left tend to see social classes, communities, cultures, and so on. Many left wing people reject the label "liberal" due to it's association with capitalist liberals, but in truth a significant number of them will be inspired by the same principles as utilitarian liberals.

What about right-wingers then?

Most right wingers are liberals. It's not my fault they've actively denied their own history.

So they are not really right-wing just being harsh liberals?

Unless they're pretty much straight up an old school aristocracy style Tory or equivalent, they're probably either a liberal or a fascist.

[Grand Proudhonia]

You are kinda denying the fact that definitions and terms are rather fluid as time evolves... Yes, right wing ideals of today would be considered the liberalism of the past until those goals were achieved and those who wished to preserve them and no further became the new conservatives... Liberal as a term is always moving towards more radical ideas as other ideas become common place.... So no, right wingers of today are not liberal, they are conservatives who wish to keep the liberal policies of yesterday and go no further

[Cekoviu]

You are kinda denying the fact that definitions and terms are rather fluid as time evolves... Yes, right wing ideals of today would be considered the liberalism of the past until those goals were achieved and those who wished to preserve them and no further became the new conservatives... Liberal as a term is always moving towards more radical ideas as other ideas become common place.... So no, right wingers of today are not liberal, they are conservatives who wish to keep the liberal policies of yesterday and go no further

That's strictly progressivism, not liberalism.

[Philjia]

Left wing politics is generally concerned with reducing wealth inequality, and flattening or ensuring the meritocracy of both political and corporate hierarchies. Liberal politics is generally concerned with personal freedom and legal equality. People can be both liberal and left wing, or one or the other. There is also an important divide in liberalism between those subscribing to utilitarian ethics (the good of the many decides right and wrong) and those subscribing to deontological ethics (actions are inherently right or wrong); those supporting utilitarianism tend to be social liberals and support more economically left policies and believe government intervention can improve social cohesion (EG. the left of the Democratic Party), while those supporting deontology tend to be classical liberals and support more economically right policies and reject government interference in society (EG. the right of the Democratic Party). Liberals prefer to view society as a collection of individuals, while non-liberals on the right and left tend to see social classes, communities, cultures, and so on. Many left wing people reject the label "liberal" due to it's association with capitalist liberals, but in truth a significant number of them will be inspired by the same principles as utilitarian liberals.

What about right-wingers then?

Right wing politics tends to be of the view that the things left wing poltics would like to dismantle is a societal good; wealth inequality allows exceptional individuals to be rewarded, hierarchies create strong societies, and so on. The liberal right tends to be support limited government, preferring that hierarchies emerge naturally through capitalism, but the non liberal right strongly supports a strong government which can do what is necessary to enforce order with impunity. As with the non-liberal left, the non-liberal right is more inclined to see society in terms of groups rather than individuals (and often believes that some groups are inherently superior to others), but is also very much attached to the idea of heroes; exceptional individuals will stand out from the masses as an ideal to strive for. The non liberal right also tends to very nationalistic, in keeping with their less individualistic outlook.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I'm going to forgo taking that leftvalues test, as I'm not a leftist.

[Grand Proudhonia]

I'm going to forgo taking that leftvalues test, as I'm not a leftist.

Really, we should all forgo any form of test that gives you an ideology based on a faceless algorithm... Define yourself

[LiberNovusAmericae]

But calling all right-wingers fascists? That is ridiculous and counterproductive.

Most right wingers are liberals. It's not my fault they've actively denied their own history.

While some conservative ideologies have and deny their liberal ideological ancestry, they're not liberals anymore. There is nothing liberal about the theocrats in the GOP.

[Kowani]

Apparently, I’m an Eco-Marxist now.

This test doesn’t really focus on the core of my beliefs at all, though…

[Nakena]

Apparently, I’m an Eco-Marxist now.

This test doesn’t really focus on the core of my beliefs at all, though…

No you aren't and no it doesn't.

I'm going to forgo taking that leftvalues test, as I'm not a leftist.

Really, we should all forgo any form of test that gives you an ideology based on a faceless algorithm... Define yourself

I don't take any of them serious beyond a little fun for in and between.

[Kowani]

Apparently, I’m an Eco-Marxist now.

This test doesn’t really focus on the core of my beliefs at all, though…

No you aren't and no it doesn't.

Both of these things are true.

[Pacomia]

No you aren't and no it doesn't.

Both of these things are true.

I’m pretty happy with my results. You’re right though, it says pretty much nothing about libertarian/authoritarianism or federalism or democracy/autocracy or any of the things I really care about.

[Pacomia]

Really, we should all forgo any form of test that gives you an ideology based on a faceless algorithm... Define yourself

I don't take any of them serious beyond a little fun for in and between.

I know my beliefs, I just use them to give my beliefs names. Sometimes they get my beliefs wrong, though. I take the results with a grain of salt.