Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[The Parkus Empire]

Ares is a weenie, tho

I take it you're a fan of Bacchus? :^)

Hestia

[Questers]

“A human life, I think, should be well rooted in some spot of native land, where it may get the love of tender kinship for the face of the earth, for the labours of men go forth to, for the sounds and accents that haunt it, for whatever will give that early home a familiar unmistakable difference among the future widening of knowledge: a spot where the definiteness of early memories may be inwrought with affection, and kindly acquaintance with all neighbors, even to the dogs and donkeys, may spread not by sentimental effort and reflection, but as a sweet habit of the blood.” George Eliot

Discuss.

[Jackania yugo]

Are the regressive left...technically centrist? I saw that a videos comment section somewhere.

[The Parkus Empire]

“A human life, I think, should be well rooted in some spot of native land, where it may get the love of tender kinship for the face of the earth, for the labours of men go forth to, for the sounds and accents that haunt it, for whatever will give that early home a familiar unmistakable difference among the future widening of knowledge: a spot where the definiteness of early memories may be inwrought with affection, and kindly acquaintance with all neighbors, even to the dogs and donkeys, may spread not by sentimental effort and reflection, but as a sweet habit of the blood.” George Eliot

Discuss.

Sounds an awfully conservative thing for her to say.

[Dumb Ideologies]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/patriarchal-race-colonize-mars-just-another-example-male-entitlement-ncna849681.

Is colonizing Mars sexist?

My brain hurts from just how fucking stupid that piece is.

Would that author support population controls to help us limit a burden accelerating out of control? Would she fuck. Muh reproductive freedom. Would she screech when "women and children" suffer "the worst" in resource wars (because men dying on front lines DON'T COUNT, check your privilege!)

Expanding to empty space to secure resources is not linked in any real way other than artsy wafflevomit to any "inherent" desire of men to dominate.

If a man guff-puked something that was so clearly horse faeces it wouldn't get published and he'd be added to the "untalented hack" spam blacklist.

But on the whole, my feelings about this article are positive.

[Cekoviu]

Are the regressive left...technically centrist? I saw that a videos comment section somewhere.

Here's a tip: never listen to the comments section of a video.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Are the regressive left...technically centrist? I saw that a videos comment section somewhere.

Here's a tip: never listen to the comments section of a video.

They taught me a lot I didn't know about this group called the Illuminati, that everyone is gay, black people are a separate species, and that a large number of basic vocabulary words are spelt completely differently to what both I and my spellcheck previously believed.

Eye-opening stuff.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, I get your meaning. I don't believe it's sufficient, but it's necessary, and probably a good first step. It's a very human approach to the problem that cuts past a lot of the bullshit, but ultimately, I think more structured approaches will be necessary in the end, but there is a lot to be said for simply organizing together in common purpose and comradery. I forget, are you an anarchist? That may explain our disconnect.

Ah I see, that was what my last question was about. I was deliberately speaking in generalities, rather than recommending concrete policies and the shape of future institutions. No I'm not an anarchist that believes totally in spontaneity and goodwill, though I agree they have a great part to play. I do believe in a structured approach, and while I generally support left populist initiatives, I'd ideally be some sort of state syndicalist.

If we are talking about specific structures, I like at a lot of what they've made in Rojava. I am definitely not opposed to their sort of loose quota system,for gender and often for ethnicity/religion, that takes into account the composition of areas. In these bodies the gender imbalance for instance cannot exceed 60-40 either way. I also like the mixture of decentralisation and federalisation they use, where local communities that are quite conservative aren't forced to say discard the hijab or aspects of their faith and can maintain specific bylaws, but at the same time have practices such as child marriage and honour killings severely punished by the central authority.

These measures have seen great social change across the region, many are not applicable to our situation and many are, but there's a start I suppose.

I oppose quotas, but would support examination of ratios of hiring.
If a company receives 1,000 women applicants and 9,000 male ones, it makes sense for their hires to be roughly so proportioned, but if they're getting 5,000 of each and they hire 9 men to each woman, it warrants closer examination and if sexism is determined to be the cause then the company should be firstly informed and given access to the ideas and structures to change itself within a set time period, secondly punished, and perhaps if egregious, subjected to having its hiring policies determined or vetoed by outside sources or its assets outright abolished and divided between competitors.
If a company receives 1,000 women applicants and 9,000 male ones, I don't see by what reasoning they should be pressured into putting more weight to the womens applications, especially as it may be kicking the can down the road from other failures. (For instance, the state educating people in a sexist manner that leads to more men/women entering a field than the reverse, and then turning around to blame companies and syndicates for failing to hire them equally.)

I agree that federals should set the baseline and decentralization can allow for laboratories of democracy.

You're supportive of institutional measures to counter misandry?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Capitalism is mostly controlled by white men, but so what? It's not like they need racism to keep their holdings.

The existence of whiteness is itself racism.

What is whiteness? (baby don't hurt me)

[Bakery Hill]

Ah I see, that was what my last question was about. I was deliberately speaking in generalities, rather than recommending concrete policies and the shape of future institutions. No I'm not an anarchist that believes totally in spontaneity and goodwill, though I agree they have a great part to play. I do believe in a structured approach, and while I generally support left populist initiatives, I'd ideally be some sort of state syndicalist.

If we are talking about specific structures, I like at a lot of what they've made in Rojava. I am definitely not opposed to their sort of loose quota system,for gender and often for ethnicity/religion, that takes into account the composition of areas. In these bodies the gender imbalance for instance cannot exceed 60-40 either way. I also like the mixture of decentralisation and federalisation they use, where local communities that are quite conservative aren't forced to say discard the hijab or aspects of their faith and can maintain specific bylaws, but at the same time have practices such as child marriage and honour killings severely punished by the central authority.

These measures have seen great social change across the region, many are not applicable to our situation and many are, but there's a start I suppose.

I oppose quotas, but would support examination of ratios of hiring.
If a company receives 1,000 women applicants and 9,000 male ones, it makes sense for their hires to be roughly so proportioned, but if they're getting 5,000 of each and they hire 9 men to each woman, it warrants closer examination and if sexism is determined to be the cause then the company should be firstly informed and given access to the ideas and structures to change itself within a set time period, secondly punished, and perhaps if egregious, subjected to having its hiring policies determined or vetoed by outside sources or its assets outright abolished and divided between competitors.
If a company receives 1,000 women applicants and 9,000 male ones, I don't see by what reasoning they should be pressured into putting more weight to the womens applications, especially as it may be kicking the can down the road from other failures. (For instance, the state educating people in a sexist manner that leads to more men/women entering a field than the reverse, and then turning around to blame companies and syndicates for failing to hire them equally.)

I was talking more about decision making bodies rather than economic enterprises. That's a whole other kettle of fish and needs a different approach in my opinion, and ties into how you want your economy to work. I'm not so keen on quotas of any kind here, especially in smaller enterprises

I agree that federals should set the baseline and decentralization can allow for laboratories of democracy.

You're supportive of institutional measures to counter misandry?

I don't subscribe to a lot of MRA thinking but the aforementioned measures would only be effective if they worked in both directions. The methods of doing this naturally get a little more complicated, but de-emphasising or loosening gender roles in our education system would probably be the most important. A cultural debate is also important, though I'm not too impressed with the one going on at the moment.

[Questers]

The existence of whiteness is itself racism.

What is whiteness? (baby don't hurt me)

It's not really a thing. It's something made-up to guarantee the tenure of academics. Ignore it.

[Questers]

A cultural debate is also important, though I'm not too impressed with the one going on at the moment.

The problem with starting a culture debate is that it doesn't necessarily go your way, again the basic problem of democracy.

We have a culture debate now (at least in the UK, I don't know about Australia) and it's terrible. What makes us think that it's going to improve? The worst part is that you can't even stop it. Now it's out of the barrel, nobody can stand up and say alright, let's just stop talking about it now okay! Not going to happen.

We must be careful when we decide we need to have a conversation about something.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Are the regressive left...technically centrist? I saw that a videos comment section somewhere.

As I understand the regressive left, since I call myself proudly a regressive leftist, it is (an intentionally disparaging) term for revolutionary communism. I have, as the saying goes, owned it.

[Proctopeo]

Are the regressive left...technically centrist? I saw that a videos comment section somewhere.

As I understand the regressive left, since I call myself proudly a regressive leftist, it is (an intentionally disparaging) term for revolutionary communism. I have, as the saying goes, owned it.

I've never seen it used to describe revolutionary communism.

[Bakery Hill]

A cultural debate is also important, though I'm not too impressed with the one going on at the moment.

The problem with starting a culture debate is that it doesn't necessarily go your way, again the basic problem of democracy.

We have a culture debate now (at least in the UK, I don't know about Australia) and it's terrible. What makes us think that it's going to improve? The worst part is that you can't even stop it. Now it's out of the barrel, nobody can stand up and say alright, let's just stop talking about it now okay! Not going to happen.

We must be careful when we decide we need to have a conversation about something.

When it comes to culture wars I'm generally pretty disengaged, so I suppose I have the luxury of saying something like that.

But granted that's a good point. Talking doesn't solve everything, though I'm partial to it where it's useful.

[Bakery Hill]

As I understand the regressive left, since I call myself proudly a regressive leftist, it is (an intentionally disparaging) term for revolutionary communism. I have, as the saying goes, owned it.

I've never seen it used to describe revolutionary communism.

Neither have I, he has no idea what he's talking about.

[Questers]

The regressive left means leftists who support minority groups which have non-progressive views. It's like when you get LGBT people who like the Taliban because George Bush doesn't like them. That's the regressive left.

[Bakery Hill]

The regressive left means leftists who support minority groups which have non-progressive views. It's like when you get LGBT people who like the Taliban because George Bush doesn't like them. That's the regressive left.

Pretty much. They just as easily, or ime more often, support a liberal capitalist democracy than any form of revolutionary socialism.

[Uiiop]

I've never seen it used to describe revolutionary communism.

Neither have I, he has no idea what he's talking about.

He thinks being anti-US on foreign policy groups means you are a revolutionary communist and "Regressive left" being a snarl term against that viewpoint.

That being said it's still a snarl word that gets murky and merges with other terms of it's type if you tried to get a consensus meaning.

[Ostroeuropa]

The regressive left means leftists who support minority groups which have non-progressive views. It's like when you get LGBT people who like the Taliban because George Bush doesn't like them. That's the regressive left.

It also applies to support for misandry imo.

Neither have I, he has no idea what he's talking about.

He thinks being anti-US on foreign policy groups means you are a revolutionary communist and "Regressive left" being a snarl term against that viewpoint.

That being said it's still a snarl word that gets murky and merges with other terms of it's type if you tried to get a consensus meaning.

I disagree it's a snarl word.
The right wing likes to characterize the flaws as intrinsic to the left wing as a whole.
It's only really dissident leftists who use the term, and they usually have a reason to do so.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The regressive left means leftists who support minority groups which have non-progressive views. It's like when you get LGBT people who like the Taliban because George Bush doesn't like them. That's the regressive left.

Pretty much. They just as easily, or ime more often, support a liberal capitalist democracy than any form of revolutionary socialism.

IME, a regressive who supports Capitalism is very, VERY rare.

[Bakery Hill]

Pretty much. They just as easily, or ime more often, support a liberal capitalist democracy than any form of revolutionary socialism.

IME, a regressive who supports Capitalism is very, VERY rare.

No they're not really. The welfare state still operates under capitalism, most of them seem to support that, de facto or in ideal.

[Proctopeo]

Pretty much. They just as easily, or ime more often, support a liberal capitalist democracy than any form of revolutionary socialism.

IME, a regressive who supports Capitalism is very, VERY rare.

IME they're a mixture of socialists, democratic socialists, and sometimes even social democrats. Communists are too busy buying Che Guevara shirts and anti-capitalist laptop stickers to be actively regressive.

[Bakery Hill]

The regressive left means leftists who support minority groups which have non-progressive views. It's like when you get LGBT people who like the Taliban because George Bush doesn't like them. That's the regressive left.

It also applies to support for misandry imo.

He thinks being anti-US on foreign policy groups means you are a revolutionary communist and "Regressive left" being a snarl term against that viewpoint.

That being said it's still a snarl word that gets murky and merges with other terms of it's type if you tried to get a consensus meaning.

I disagree it's a snarl word.
The right wing likes to characterize the flaws as intrinsic to the left wing as a whole.
It's only really dissident leftists who use the term, and they usually have a reason to do so.

It came from the New Atheist mob around some attitudes towards Islam, unsure if I'd call them leftists but that's just semantics.

I don't use it, but it's pretty easy to see what they mean and share their disdain.

[Ostroeuropa]

I oppose quotas, but would support examination of ratios of hiring.
If a company receives 1,000 women applicants and 9,000 male ones, it makes sense for their hires to be roughly so proportioned, but if they're getting 5,000 of each and they hire 9 men to each woman, it warrants closer examination and if sexism is determined to be the cause then the company should be firstly informed and given access to the ideas and structures to change itself within a set time period, secondly punished, and perhaps if egregious, subjected to having its hiring policies determined or vetoed by outside sources or its assets outright abolished and divided between competitors.
If a company receives 1,000 women applicants and 9,000 male ones, I don't see by what reasoning they should be pressured into putting more weight to the womens applications, especially as it may be kicking the can down the road from other failures. (For instance, the state educating people in a sexist manner that leads to more men/women entering a field than the reverse, and then turning around to blame companies and syndicates for failing to hire them equally.)

I was talking more about decision making bodies rather than economic enterprises. That's a whole other kettle of fish and needs a different approach in my opinion, and ties into how you want your economy to work. I'm not so keen on quotas of any kind here, especially in smaller enterprises

I agree that federals should set the baseline and decentralization can allow for laboratories of democracy.

You're supportive of institutional measures to counter misandry?

I don't subscribe to a lot of MRA thinking but the aforementioned measures would only be effective if they worked in both directions. The methods of doing this naturally get a little more complicated, but de-emphasising or loosening gender roles in our education system would probably be the most important. A cultural debate is also important, though I'm not too impressed with the one going on at the moment.

I'm fine with quotas for state managed decision making bodies relating to discrimination and such, certainly.

+

I doubt many MRAs care if you subscribe to the thinking compared to support their proposed solutions and demands, to be a little snide, we won't need you to accept the metal detector works, just agree to help us dig up the valuables that, coincidentally, our metal detector keeps finding. More cushy jobs for us.]

Bans on circumcision, a government body to address misandry in education and correct for boys being marked lower as well as first observe, then police teachers to combat institutional misandry, justice reforms and perhaps early release schemes for male prisoners. (If the sentences men receive are, on average, twice as long for theft, the reform will after-sentencing commute sentences for theft to half as long for males.), equal funding for domestic violence and rape, and demands that state owned or funded news sources and any state funded organizations always address both male and female perpetrators and victims in their activities, etc.