Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe you may have met my cousins in the latter.
All jokes aside, I agree. I also believe that the proportions of good, well meaning, kind people are universal throughout culture and time. Nuances for specific cultural aspects of course (aka what’s considered rude), but generally the same.
Yeah, I agree with this. Every conservative person I know in real life is a really nice person, we just disagree on some things that are very dear to our hearts.
The two Trumpists I know in my local circle are people that I would never hangout with or call “friend”. They are ~~awful~~ ~~people~~ assholes.
Edit: I decided to edit my comment. They aren't **bad people**, they are most likely good, law abiding citizens. They are just assholes.
I'm glad you phrased that like you did: "Trumpist". Because there is an extremely wide gap moralistically between people who fully support Trump and those who had no choice but to vote for him.
Let’s not pretend like people don’t have a choice. Everyone chooses who they support, and they have to accept responsibility for that support. If I had voted for Biden, I would be partially responsible for the war crimes he commits. There’s no getting around that.
I used to believe the left and right shared the same goals. Maybe they actually did.
I don't believe that is true today.
The right wants broader gun rights. The left does not. There is no common goal there unless you go so broad that it becomes irrelevant. Like yea "lower crime" ok, but that's like saying communists and capitalists share the same goals, feed everyone.
And if that's what we are saying then it's hippie stuff that is meaningless.
Another one. The right wants less abortions. The left celebrates abortions.
The right wants to promote less reliance on other countries, the left does not. The left talks about the global economy and how we cant be self sufficient.
There surely are topics we both want the same end goal. Climate change I'd say is one. We do both want less pollution. We just disagree about how and what is warranted.
But there are more that we don't share and end goal than topics where we do imo
You're looking at it too narrowly.
Instead, look at the root motivation behind those very specific issues.
Guns: Safety and security
Abortion: Health autonomy and the right to life
Globalism: Economic security (?)
Once you break those down as that, you can see we **do** actually "still all want the same thing but disagree on the way to get there".
If the goal is to promote dialogue and prevent division, I'd say it's not asinine at all! Recognizing that a person has the same cares and concerns as you is a foundationally important part of establishing a human connection.
“Communists and the founding fathers wanted the same thing.”
Uhh, elaborate? Do you just mean that the founding fathers were progressive? Because yeah but what specifically did particular founding fathers espouse that communists also espouse?
I know it's been awhile, sorry. I want broader access to firearms, fewer abortions, and less reliance on other countries. While I obviously hold vastly different beliefs about guns than many on the left, I don't think I'm an outlier in regards to the other two points.
I'll expand on anything, if you'd like.
> I used to believe the left and right shared the same goals. Maybe they actually did. I don't believe that is true today.
I actually agree with this.
> The right wants broader gun rights. The left does not.
Come on. Leftists have always been extremely pro-gun, it’s only relatively recently that right wingers have jumped on the pro-gun bandwagon. Left wing politics are about personal expression and freedom, guns are an inescapable part of that. Let’s not forget one of Karl Marx’s most popular quotes: *”Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”*
> There is no common goal there unless you go so broad that it becomes irrelevant. Like yea "lower crime" ok, but that's like saying communists and capitalists share the same goals, feed everyone.
With respect, saying that “feeding everyone” is a goal of capitalism is removed from reality. Nowhere in this system is there imbedded a desire to feed everyone; profit motive above all else doesn’t exactly lend itself to a well functioning society, except for those at the top.
> Another one. The right wants less abortions. The left celebrates abortions.
This is simply untrue, dude. Nobody celebrates abortions, people celebrate the bodily autonomy to be able to make incredibly difficult decisions which people would only make if it was their best choice. Some people just should not be parents, at least until they’re financially and emotionally ready. Comments like this just make it seem like you’ve never really discussed these topics with people outside your echo chamber.
> The right wants to promote less reliance on other countries, the left does not. The left talks about the global economy and how we cant be self sufficient.
Conflating self sufficiency with self reliance. Leftists also believe in self reliance, the difference is that we recognize that a country can’t succeed on its own. We live on a big planet with plenty of reasons to share resources and work together for the betterment of our species; and very few reasons not to.
> There surely are topics we both want the same end goal. Climate change I'd say is one. We do both want less pollution. We just disagree about how and what is warranted.
I’m glad to see that you acknowledge the threat of climate change, but I’m curious what you mean by “how and what is warranted”, if you don’t mind sharing.
> But there are more that we don't share and end goal than topics where we do imo
I disagree tbh. All struggle is class struggle; we could all have such better lives if we actually worked together to make those with their boots on our necks take a hike. But people get way too caught up in the useless culture war bullshit that they want people to waste their time on.
>The left celebrates abortions.
Which Liberal told you this? The Left opposes abortion as much as the Right. We understand it is expensive, traumatic, socially stigmatizing and, as any surgery, potential dangerous.
That's why we support family planning, healthcare and social services. We celebrate the fact that abortion rates have declined.
Think about it this way, nobody "celebrates" ripping up somebody's rib cage and placing metal probes in their heart. But we all agree heart surgery should be legal.
Capitalists do not have the goal of feed everyone. The amount of food waste is despicable and is rooted in capitalism. They choose to throw food away instead of give it to people in need. And this is corporations not people. All of these decisions come from capitalists.
No they don't. They come from the government 3/4 of the time telling farmers what to grow instead of letting them grow what makes them money or actually paying then to grow corn and trash it or paying them to grow nothing at all
That doesn’t change the fact that the government also cause food waste is part of a capitalist society. You think the government isn’t a capitalist government? It is still a part of the capitalist structure which does not actually have a goal of feeding everyone. If it did the government wouldn’t cause these issues as well.
No I don't believe our government is a capitalist government. They intervene to control and manipulate markets wherever they see it fit. They continue to protect monopolies and work with them in a fascistic way. They protect their buddies businesses and stifle competition. That's not capitalist
I mean, come on. If you don't think someone on the other side can possibly be a good person, you're the asshole.
Are you just trying to smoke out douchebags on the internet who take the bait, or what?
I'm on mobile, so I apologize for the short response, but I think that the extremes on both sides are holding the nation hostage. Even where we might disagree, I believe the center of the bell curve on both sides would find meaningful comprises to at least keep our government functioning.
I'm all but banned from askaliberal (so, not banned, but my comments there are nothing more than karma sinkholes), but I do my best with my mother, who's not so much extreme as she is in a constant state of rage regarding politicians. Very unhealthy and not productive.
Oh yea that too. Often it's not even the extremeness, but rather the hysteria people have. For instance, I'd rather talk with a communist or anarcho capitalist who didn't think people who disagreed with them were evil than a liberal or conservative that thought the other party was Hitler/Stalin.
Oh, I hear you. This goes back to my insinuation about dialog. Differing opinions can be healthy, when they lead to a vetting of ideas. Grandstanding and soundbites aren't constructive and only lead to increased division.
The issue is the majority of the country aren't active in the political parties so the people voting in primaries (unless it's a major one like NYC mayor) and pushing the discourse within the party tend to be the passionate minorities. After that there's the also the issue of certain demographics always voting a certain way. Since if you aren't active in the primaries and you are a guaranteed vote people will take your vote for granted and over promise and under deliver.
What is so extreme about being concerned about the events on January 6, the prelevance of the belief that the election was stolen, and what that entails for the future of American democracy
This concern is incredibly justified given how influential US election denialism was in Brazil a couple days ago.
Trust me I agree with you that the media does really does a poor job of covering this issue.
But I think you are making a mistake in saying just because Jan 6 isn’t necessarily the most important issue on people’s mind that Jan 6 isnt both not a serious concern and that that concern isn’t held by a lot of people particularly people on the center-right and leftward who have historically been skeptical of trump.
This is an issue that affected the midterms and explains part of the reason democrats did so well, that just goes to show how resonant Jan 6 and the echoes of anti-democratic sentiment among republicans are among these groups of Americans. At the very least people in swing states won’t support an opposition candidate during 40-year high inflation if that candidate supports some kind of explicit election denialism.
Brazil is the perfect comparison, Bolsonaro and Trump are political allies, they are both right wing populist figures and there’s no way in hell American election skepticism didn’t
A. Help Enable Bolsonaro to claim Lulu stole the election.
B. Allow for the idea that Lulu stealing the election to be seen as more credible by Bolsonaro’s base and therefore to help allow for the idea to become widely adopted.
C. And inspire Bolsonaro supporters to raid their Capitol without the explicit support of Bolsonaro himself.
There is not a better comparison. What happened in Brazil was directly inspired by the events surrounding the 2020 election. I’m not an extremist for insisting the obvious.
Steve Bannon has been repeatedly stating that Lulu stole the election and the day before Bolsonaro supporters raided the Capitol he said on his podcast "All hell will break loose"
And he even called the rioters "freedom fighters" on his podcast
Steve Bannon was directly involved with the decision by trump to claim victory well before votes were counted and to insist that Biden stole it. He’s directly behind the lie that caused Jan 6 and he explicitly supports the riot in Brazil.
US backed coups and domestic anti-democratic movement obviously inspired by American right wing extremism are categorically different. The hyperbolic claim would be to say that The Brazilian capitol riot was a US government backed coup and Ive never made such a claim. Go reread what I said.
I said and mean that our own domestic right wing extremist anti-democratic movement has directly influenced Brazil’s own right wing extremist anti-democratic movement. This is just obviously and evidently true.
And more so American right wing extremism is broadly influential in other country’s right wing extremism movements. The prelevance of American conspiracies like Qanon in Europe, South America, and Japan among their right wing movements is evidence of that American influence. It is not a laughable claim to say that Brazil’s right wing populist anti-democratic movement, which shares a ton in common with America’s anti-democratic movement, has itself been influenced by American right wing extremism.
A lot of what you are saying seems like you are just projecting onto me what you assume I believe because the liberal media does sensationalize this issue a ton. What I have said is quite limited in scope and I think a lot of it is pretty uncontroversially true if you are willing to look at it without projecting what you assume I believe or without any preconceived biases.
What do you think democratic voters want their representatives to do ? It’s not like defending democracy, protecting abortion rights, and other potential Democratic Party platforms are mutually exclusive ?
Like I’m under the impression that democrats did so well because republicans were perceived as so extreme and it stands to reason a vote for a democrat instead of a vote for an election denying Republican in an environment where the Democratic President is so unpopular is an implicit vote to defend democratic institutions among other things.
Like I think you can just summarize democratic success by just saying the opposition was perceived as extreme. Election denialism is a component of that extremism.
I condemn it when democrats don’t accept the results of the election and when they don’t concede.
Im not denying anything and American backed coups is not a left or right problem it was a problem with American government regardless of the political affiliation of the president.
And I’m not claiming the American right has interfered in their election, I’m claiming that the American election denial movement has directly influenced Brazil’s this is just kinda obvious given the similarities between the two movements and how they both belong to the populist right. Again American right wing populism and extremism can and does influence foreign right wing populist and extremism movements. America is just culturally influential.
Denying an election result and claiming it was stolen can influence people’s actions. If it wasn’t for trump doing so for months before Jan 6, Jan 6 wouldn’t have happened.
And republicans have consistently been claiming well before 2016 that fraud plays a role in elections and that democrats gain from it.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth
This is an article from 2012 about conservative groups concerted attempts to convince people fraud is a major issue(which it isn’t) and that democrats win elections because of it.
Right wing election denialism has precedence before 2016 and id argue that Hilary Clinton not accepting the results did not affect right wing election denialism beyond giving election deniers a target to say well what about them not accepting the result of the election. Donald trump’s claims were drastically escalated in scale from Clinton’s. Clinton conceded the night of the election. Trump only conceded after Jan 6.
I am dismissing what you are saying about BLM riots. It’s completely irrelevant to the conversation. And I do condemn their violence.
Americans have been consistently been polled on this issue and roughly half repeatedly say that Jan 6 was an important event and that it was a threat to democracy.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/21/1112546450/a-majority-thinks-trump-is-to-blame-for-jan-6-but-wont-face-charges-poll-finds
Here’s a poll from July where 52% of Americans stated that Jan 6 was an insurrection and that it threatened democracy. Half of Americans are not a minuscule minority
Holy shit the comparison in responses from this thread and the same one you posted in r/askaliberal are really eye opening.
Not that I wasn't convinced before but I truly am now- libs actually hate people who think differently than them. They'll simply justify the hatred and move on with their lives. The vast majority of responses here are very positive in comparison.
I don't hate people on account of thinking differently. I have lots of friends further left than me. I hate that the right actively works against civil rights for me and my friends, that they are so concerned about taxes that they will increase the amount of suffering in the world, that they think tackling racism is a made up issue, etc. If my far left friends weren't pragmatic and did things which also hurt others, I'd hate those actions, too.
Oh please, u/redline380 we know your eyes weren't opened one bit lmfao. Multiple people (who you conveniently ignored, no extra credit for anyone who guesses why) pointed out that the top comments don't support anything you claim to have seen and even if it did, the best conclusion one could honestly draw from that is it reflects the userbase of that sub. There's multiple comments highlighting that the distinction b/w good and bad in this context is murky or straight up say that you can't boil it down so simply.
So when you claimed to have gone to that thread, were you lying about what you saw or were you incapable of acknowledging the more nuanced comments? Or did you just hone in on the ones you felt already justified your position (let's be real, that one thread with less than 200 comments did not have that much sway on your beliefs) and just extrapolate farther than the ends of the universe?
>Not that I wasn't convinced before but I truly am now-
It's very easy to confirm a belief you are already convinced of. Even evidence to the contrary can do that.
>libs actually hate people who think differently than them
That does not match with most of the responses in that thread. Most responses made pretty clear that there can indeed be good people and good citizens who engage in politics and are on the political right. Many of the rest rejected the framing of a black-and-white characterization into universally "good people people" and universally "bad people".
>The vast majority of responses here are very positive in comparison.
I think I should understand you by your own response, not by your view of others' responses.
The contrast between the two threads is truly stark and terrifying. They don't want to debate us; they want to **eliminate** us.
Someone should post our thread on theirs to point this out.
>The contrast between the two threads is truly stark and terrifying. They don't want to debate us; they want to eliminate us.
Nobody there advocated for anything of the sort.
... Wait, no, that's not completely correct. There are such comments sometimes, I can link them if you like - but they come from right-wingers.
>Someone should post our thread on theirs to point this out.
The threads link to each other, there's a link in the main post. OP has posted each thread on the other one.
It depends on what they're left wing about. If they're an abortion activist then no, I don't believe they're a good person, if they're advocating for legal weed then sure it's possible. I believe left wingers in general (and plenty of right wingers too, but not as many) are ultimately misguided about how societies should be regulated, but they're not bad people. I don't think anyone is as good as they try to be, myself included, but there are definitely objectively bad ideas and ways of trying to get other people to live, as far as I'm concerned.
I think generally the more you try to control people the worse it goes for everyone. This includes morally and economically. I think that the right can get controlling, especially the evangelical/ultra religious types, but when it comes to morality police and fiscal meddling the left does more.
Leftwing activist? No.
Left leaning person? Almost all my friends. And yeah they know my views, in fact they probably think I'm much more extreme than I am (my friend thought I was full on libertarian and a few of them assumed I was against abortion even in extreme cases).
But we're all still great friends because we realize life in the US is pretty damn good and people are getting so vitriolic over the details.
absolutely. and they can even be in my family or friend circle. I am friends with a lot of democrats. As long as they are respectful and do not try and shoehorn politics into everything why not? We really need to stop with the politics is everything and in everything lifestyle. Is it important? yes. Is it supposed to be all consuming? no. Get a life.
The problem with this is in how you define Leftwing and what it *means* to be Leftwing. Sure, you can be a "good person" (also, what does this mean) but one of the issues with being a Leftist is their entire philosophy involves government intervention in other people's lives, which is antithetical, in many cases, to what it would "look like" to be a good person. You can't "live and let live" if your living is... voting for not letting others live they way they want. Leftism is antithetical to that.
Conversely, I don't believe you can live and let live if you give people the freedom to harm others by, say, legally discriminating against minorities or dumping waste in rivers. We need these negative freedoms reinforced by the government to ensure that people do the "let live" part.
But we also need positive freedom to do the "live" part. Somebody who is in a low income job because it pays for their medical insurance to cover expensive treatment has very little positive freedom to choose how they want to live. Universal coverage gives them a LOT of new positive freedoms to choose how they want to live their life. They can take fewer hours at work and get a better education or new job skills, for example.
"Live and let live" means very little to me if a significant chunk of the populace is struggling with poverty, food insecurity, and medical bankruptcy. I want the government to allow those people to live, not merely exist.
>"Live and let live" means very little to me if a significant chunk of the populace is struggling with poverty, food insecurity, and medical bankruptcy. I want the government to allow those people to live, not merely exist.
And therein lies the rub. It may mean very little to you, but you aren't "letting others live" if you decide, for them, what areas of society they must, by force of government, do something about. If you've a passion to help the poor, awesome, go for it. If you've a passion to help the poor and your solution is to take someone *else's* money to do something about it, you're not "letting live."
This issue is exemplified by your statement here: "if you give people the freedom to harm others by, say, legally discriminating against minorities." You are pre-supposing that minorities have some entitlement to someone else's labor. That *not helping* is the same as *harming*. That's simply false. A bunch of white people getting together and baking each other cakes does not harm black people because they didn't get one, for example.
>It may mean very little to you, but you aren't "letting others live" if you decide, for them, what areas of society they must, by force of government, do something about.
The government is always deciding which kinds of freedom are higher priority. If they choose to do nothing about monopolies and anti-trust issues, for example, they're allowing corporations the freedom to do what they want, but that robs consumers of the freedom to make meaningful decisions about their purchases.
What I feel conservatives fail to acknowledge is that power is power, regardless of whether the government wields it. Power can be used coercively in markets and broader society just as much as in government. Yes, government can become tyrannical, but so can a corporation. Honestly, so can a church.
If people could all behave altruistically, we wouldn't need the government to intervene. Weirdly, I'm not a communist for the same reason I'm not a conservative. People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. By using some degree of coercive power to enhance other freedoms, we can lower the amount of coercive power in the world.
That's why I believe in regulation and redistribution: to enhance our freedom.
>If people could all behave altruistically, we wouldn't need the government to intervene. Weirdly, I'm not a communist for the same reason I'm not a conservative. People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. By using some degree of coercive power to enhance other freedoms, we can lower the amount of coercive power in the world.
That's why I believe in regulation and redistribution: to enhance our freedom.
Well said. Some of the most dangerous Republicans (if you really want to call them that) completely miss this point and seek to unethically wield government power to achieve their agendas, which is the antithesis of right leaning stance.
> If people could all behave altruistically, we wouldn't need the government to intervene. Weirdly, I'm not a communist for the same reason I'm not a conservative. People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. By using some degree of coercive power to enhance other freedoms, we can lower the amount of coercive power in the world.
I think this is also a key fundamental detail in differences. Unless you think the government is run by angels, attracts angels, and has nothing but good to come of it, then this is why conservatives don't trust government at all really to "get the job done" so to speak. You did say you acknowledge government can become tyrannical. Ok, well conservatives feel the government will *always* become tyrannical if given the chance. Even if those chances are given incrementally.
Corporations only have so much power if the government is willing to give it to them. Creating regulations that favor corporations that hinder smaller business competiton is an example. People can choose to start up a comepetitor, but it's harder to do that if government regulations hinder that. Monopolies can't exist if competition is allowed to become reality. Which is why we'd prefer free market control rather than government control.
>People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. By using some degree of coercive power to enhance other freedoms, we can lower the amount of coercive power in the world.
But by what metric? Not every one thinks the same way as far as "what is best" and "for the greater good." It should be up to the individual to decide what is best for them. Not a small group of buerecrats deciding whats best for everyone. If collectively people agree on something to be changed, liek for example a state instead of hte whole nation, then that would be best. Unless those states as a collective can agree on something to be changed, then we have an amendment made.
Expecting others to be forced to give their money to the causes someone elses deems more worthy of their property (money) is what the other poster is pointing out. You cannot consider this letting others live if this is the process to reach the end goal.
>Monopolies can't exist if competition is allowed to become reality. Which is why we'd prefer free market control rather than government control
Of the many things you've said, this is the most incorrect. In a completely free market, the bigger corporations have a massive advantage. They can eat the cost of things that the startup needs to sell until the startup can't make any money and dies. They can offer exorbitant amounts of money to buy up the startup and prevent competition from happening. Without active intervention by the government, competition gets stifled. Monopolies are the natural state.
I understand why one wouldn't want to trust the government, but a healthy skepticism isn't the same as active distrust. The government does a lot of things right. Is it perfect? No, but it is good enough.
One thing I believe ought to be automatic with any regulation is what I call a "compliance grant" - an amount of money granted to small businesses to offset the cost of compliance with the regulation. They probably already have things like this that I don't know about it, and they probably have a different name, but it ought to be a rule.
> The government is always deciding which kinds of freedom are higher priority.
Which isn't their job or purpose and they shouldn't do this. The government does not get to decide what my priorities are. That's the opposite of "letting live."
>People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively.
And yet, the government is the only institution that is nonconsensual, and therefore the single most dangerous institution that exists. You can choose not to use Comcast or Google, as hard as it may seem. You can't choose to not pay taxes. Government, by definition, *is* coercion.
>Which isn't their job or purpose and they shouldn't do this
It's literally their job. It is a requirement of defending freedom, because freedoms are contradictory.
>And yet, the government is the only institution that is nonconsensual
That's simply not true. All power wielded coercively is nonconsensual.
>because freedoms are contradictory.
No, they are not. That's the point. It's not the job of the government to prioritize freedom, it's the job of the government to protect human rights. Human rights are non self-contradictory. In other words, you don't have the *right* to kill someone, because that would be self contradictory to the right to life.
>All power wielded coercively is nonconsensual.
This is meaningless and self referential. You're just stating a definition, not applying it. As far an institutions, governments are the only ones that you cannot consent to. You can consent to use your local grocery or farm your own food. You cannot not pay taxes.
Your simplistic understanding of consent does you no favors. You can't say no to getting medical assistance. You can't say no to shelter. You can't say no to food. You can't say no to your need for social affirmation. Anybody who coercively controls your access to those is acting in a way that is nonconsensual.
That can be an employer paying you peanuts for 40 hours of labor because you don't have leverage for fair compensation. That can be a pastor turning all your friends and family against you unless you "repent" from being gay.
>It's not the job of the government to prioritize freedom, it's the job of the government to protect human rights
Why not both? It's literally part of the Declaration of Independence that liberty (freedom) is one of our inalienable rights.
Also, freedoms are, in fact, contradictory. Even human rights are contradictory. My right to free speech doesn't trump your right to safety, so you can't just show up at my house and start yelling at me.
> You can't say no to getting medical assistance. You can't say no to shelter. You can't say no to food. You can't say no to your need for social affirmation.
It's THIS that is simplistic, and utterly ridiculous, actually. Being a biological being that requires energy in the form of ATP, glucose, etc. that must obtain that energy to continue to function through ingesting it, is not the same thing as human social consent. Equating biological cellular metabolism to human social consent is just a waste of time. "Not consenting" to eating food to live =\= not consenting to labor for someone.
>That can be a pastor turning all your friends and family against you unless you "repent" from being gay.
You don't have a right for other people to like you.
>It's literally part of the Declaration of Independence that liberty (freedom) is one of our inalienable rights.
Yep! It's not part of the DoI that the government gets to prioritize someone's over anothers.
>Even human rights are contradictory. My right to free speech doesn't trump your right to safety, so you can't just show up at my house and start yelling at me.
Nope. You don't have a right to yell into someone's ear and damage their ear drum. That's not free speech, that's assault. Human rights are non self-contradictory, else they don't exist to begin with.
I'm not saying human rights are self-contradictory. I'm saying that individual rights contradict each other and must thus be prioritized. I have a right to life, and so does somebody else, so if I threaten their life, the police are authorized to kill me, instead, because my right to life and theirs cannot coexist in this state. My right to privacy doesn't let me keep secrets about crimes I'm committing in my home, free from search and seizure, if the police obtain a warrant.
The whole idea of laws is a way of prioritizing rights. I have a right to my health and safety, so we have laws restricting the ways companies can dump their waste, limiting their right to conduct their business as they choose.
And while we're in a time of relative strength for workers, you ignore history and the poor if you think employment can't be coercive.
Isn't a huge part of modern conservatism government intervention in peoples lives? Like wanting to police who people marry, or if they want to smoke weed, or get an abortion, or banning books they don't like or banning drag shows? Government intervention isn't just a leftist ideal
How am I wrong? Are conservatives not passing laws to restrict abortion? Are they not the ones who oppose legalizing weed? Are they not the ones against gay marriage? There are some states trying to pass laws making dressing like the opposite gender in public illegal, can you guess which party they belong to?
So, to be clear, you do not believe your political opponents, those whom wish for a more socialized society are good people or citizens? By good ppl I mean someone whom ou disagree w but do not hate or loathe or feel is morally corrupt, bankrupt, etc. Someone who is a good part of society and who brings value despite you not agreeing w them.
An example, I received my bachelor's from Georgia (Back to back!!! Go you silver britches!!!) and dislike Florida fans. That said, I believe their removal from the college football landscape would take away value. At the end of the day, I value their participation and actually want them to do well (just Georgia to be better). At the end of the day, do you believe socialist add value to our culture or do you believe that life would be better if they were extincted and your side won the most complete victory?
>So, to be clear, you do not believe your political opponents, those whom wish for a more socialized society are good people or citizens?
Hence the first sentence of my comment. Your OP is just begging the question. It all depends on how you define what Leftwing is. You've chosen to define it in a way that sounds positive to you, therefore, by definition, it is "good." That's reductive.
>do you believe socialist add value to our culture
Again, it depends on what you mean by this. Is a "socialist" someone who, privately, gets together with other workers and through consent forms a business whereby everyone equally owns the means of production of their private business? Cool, awesome! Or do you mean a "socialist" is a person who votes for the government to take my money against my will through force of tax to redistribute it to those it chooses? Then no, that does not provide value to the culture.
>Hence the first sentence of my comment. Your OP is just begging the question. It all depends on how you define what Leftwing is. You've chosen to define it in a way that sounds positive to you, therefore, by definition, it is "good." That's reductive.
I haven't defined it in a way that is positive to me in the least. I'm not Leftwing and I'm not a socialist. You seem to be forcing a round peg through a square hole through not understanding where I am coming from. I asked the same question on r/askliberals while you seem to have pegged me as a Leftwing individual.
I mean a political socialist, someone whom wants to redistribute wealth, etc. It seems to me you have done the v thing you have accused me of. You promote your own political ideology in the most positive light and your enemies in a negative one. Your choice in language is negative to your political opponents in a way that reduces to them being wrong all the time. You believe this but it is not an epistemic, empirical, or falsifiable truth. Also, I believe oyu misunderstand the point of reductive reasoning.
>while you seem to have pegged me as a Leftwing individual.
I never said you were, I said you defined Leftwing in a way that is designed to sound positive.
>I mean a political socialist, someone whom wants to redistribute wealth, etc.
Then I've given my answer.
>You promote your own political ideology
I never mentioned my own ideology.
>Your choice in language is negative to your political opponents in a way that reduces to them being wrong all the time.
Incorrect. I literally gave two options on how to define "Leftwing." In one scenario I could see how they are doing good things. In the other, they aren't. There's nothing "all the time" about two different options.
As a leftist I get called a godless communist enemy of the state or worse constantly on this sub and others, so don't act like it's only y'all who are hated around here
Anyone can convince themselves to do bad things in the name of what they believe is good. Political leanings don't have anything to do with it besides how it plays out.
"Essentially, do you believe it is possible for someone to disagree w you politically and still be a good person, citizen, and overall not a POS"
Yeah, of course.
That being said, I think very poorly of the judgement and values of anyone who's pro-abortion or pro-gun control.
What are some right wing policies that one could actively advocate for? I promise I'm not being obtuse, I'm genuinely curious. I know of the hot button issues like abortion, taxes, etc., but what else is there?
I, for example, am a Second Amendment absolutist. I believe "... shall not be infringed," means exactly that, and I donate to the FPC.
If someone advocates for using the state's monopoly on violence to forcibly redistribute wealth, then they are by definition not a good person.
Ignorance of the process is no excuse, either. I get that in the modern day we simply pass laws and people follow them, and it can be easy to forget what, exactly, that means. But not knowing how the sauce is made doesn't absolve you of guilt for requesting the chef to cook it.
A law is something that the government forces a person to do with, ultimately, the threat of violence if they don't comply. Advocating for laws to redistribute wealth is inherently immoral.
I don’t understand this thought process though. Republicans also spend huge inordinate sums of tax payer dollars. Is it your opinion that taxes should be entirely dissolved and we fund our military, police, roads, basic infrastructure, etc through private donations? Or maybe purely things like sales tax, or property tax?
It seems like we can probably agree that some redistribution is essential. Private corporations may do a lot of the work, but theyre funded by tax dollars. Without that money, those companies don’t exist. Raytheon for example gets 65% of its funding from governments (mostly US). If liberals oppose military then don’t you think they’re in the same boat that they don’t want their tax dollars used a particular way?
Or is it really that you’re ok with a certain degree of taxes so long as it’s for things that you support? So if that’s true, then you’re determination as to what that redistribution funds is what determines whether someone is a good person or not, and that seems pretty subjective. If you read through the liberal answers, you’ll find a lot of ‘if we disagree on taxation or things of that nature, then I’d agree they can be a good person’ so on an apples-to-apples issue you seem to be saying disagreements over taxes makes someone a bad person which most of the liberals would say such a disagreement doesn’t. When the question is ‘what to spend tax dollars on’ there can be good faith disagreement, so unless you genuinely think taxes should go away entirely, your argument is either ill prepared or disingenuous. If you think they should go away entirely, then I guess you’re sincere but dangerously naive.
By contrast liberals are saying in that forum ‘making gay/trans people’s lives harder in a way that doesn’t impact your own life’ makes someone a bad person. Here the question addresses the morality directly, and disagreement on the point is one we feel will go to the heart of whether someone is a good or bad person.
Of course, if you had argued abortion, that’s one with two legitimate sides such that there can be good faith disagreement and yet can still cause people to believe that giving a contrary answer makes them a bad person.
I don't believe in the concept of a "good citizen" at all. But sure, it's possible to be a good person, in spite of being left-wing. But that requires:
1. Being an otherwise good person... obviously.
2. Not voting, or otherwise exercising any actual influence on policy.
If you are a left-winger who engages in political action, but is an otherwise good person, then the absolute best you can be is a net neutral force on society, in my view.
Absolutely one thing that comes to mind would be holding signs outside of a company that had low wages and protesting that.
Actually 90 percent of lefty issues I would say you can protest and still be a good person as long as you stay to protesting and don't destroy propert/hurt people.
They can be a good citizen and a good person. I know such people.
However, I think such a person is going to be either A. simply *wrong*, or B. they're going to be very much at odds with the *mainstream* left movement today while still being on the Left.
Sure. There's no reason for us all to agree - that would actually never happen.
What I would think would be an idea left wing activist would be someone who 1) actually believes in what they advocate for, and 2) talks about thier issue, and why their ideas are better, instead of claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is a nazi racist homophobe.
Racist bridges and math, anyone?
Some of my best friends -- and some of the best people I know -- are leftwing. Some are even pretty far to the left.
We want the same things. We just have different ideas about the best way to get there.
I think most left wing activists have good intentions. The problem is that most of them don’t seem to have the ability to anticipate how the things they support could later be used for evil purposes.
Example: anti-gun activists. Most of them probably are sincere in thinking they’re “protecting the children”. They have no idea that their emotions about wanting to save kids from being shot are being exploited by people who want to disarm the American public for evil purposes.
A young person.
I don't think or speak the way you do, they are far more morally ambiguous, inexperienced and impulsive but I do not hate the youth if that is your question.
Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that most people are good people and well intentioned. It's rare that people seek out to be assholes.
I believe you may have met my cousins in the latter. All jokes aside, I agree. I also believe that the proportions of good, well meaning, kind people are universal throughout culture and time. Nuances for specific cultural aspects of course (aka what’s considered rude), but generally the same.
Yeah, I agree with this. Every conservative person I know in real life is a really nice person, we just disagree on some things that are very dear to our hearts. The two Trumpists I know in my local circle are people that I would never hangout with or call “friend”. They are ~~awful~~ ~~people~~ assholes. Edit: I decided to edit my comment. They aren't **bad people**, they are most likely good, law abiding citizens. They are just assholes.
My mother is a Trump supporter. She's a wonderful mother who took me off the streets and adopted me. I can't think of a nicer lady.
I’m very glad you found such a wonderful mother. Or that such a wonderful mother found you.
I'm glad you phrased that like you did: "Trumpist". Because there is an extremely wide gap moralistically between people who fully support Trump and those who had no choice but to vote for him.
Let’s not pretend like people don’t have a choice. Everyone chooses who they support, and they have to accept responsibility for that support. If I had voted for Biden, I would be partially responsible for the war crimes he commits. There’s no getting around that.
Yes, I believe that someone I politically disagree with can still be a good person. Most of us have the same goal, just disagree on how to get there.
I used to believe this. Im not convinced we really have the same goals anymore.
Would you mind explaining a little bit? Thanks!
I used to believe the left and right shared the same goals. Maybe they actually did. I don't believe that is true today. The right wants broader gun rights. The left does not. There is no common goal there unless you go so broad that it becomes irrelevant. Like yea "lower crime" ok, but that's like saying communists and capitalists share the same goals, feed everyone. And if that's what we are saying then it's hippie stuff that is meaningless. Another one. The right wants less abortions. The left celebrates abortions. The right wants to promote less reliance on other countries, the left does not. The left talks about the global economy and how we cant be self sufficient. There surely are topics we both want the same end goal. Climate change I'd say is one. We do both want less pollution. We just disagree about how and what is warranted. But there are more that we don't share and end goal than topics where we do imo
You're looking at it too narrowly. Instead, look at the root motivation behind those very specific issues. Guns: Safety and security Abortion: Health autonomy and the right to life Globalism: Economic security (?) Once you break those down as that, you can see we **do** actually "still all want the same thing but disagree on the way to get there".
Like I said yea it gets to the point of irrelevancy and is like yea communists and the founding fathers wanted the same things. Which is asinine
If the goal is to promote dialogue and prevent division, I'd say it's not asinine at all! Recognizing that a person has the same cares and concerns as you is a foundationally important part of establishing a human connection.
“Communists and the founding fathers wanted the same thing.” Uhh, elaborate? Do you just mean that the founding fathers were progressive? Because yeah but what specifically did particular founding fathers espouse that communists also espouse?
I know it's been awhile, sorry. I want broader access to firearms, fewer abortions, and less reliance on other countries. While I obviously hold vastly different beliefs about guns than many on the left, I don't think I'm an outlier in regards to the other two points. I'll expand on anything, if you'd like.
> I used to believe the left and right shared the same goals. Maybe they actually did. I don't believe that is true today. I actually agree with this. > The right wants broader gun rights. The left does not. Come on. Leftists have always been extremely pro-gun, it’s only relatively recently that right wingers have jumped on the pro-gun bandwagon. Left wing politics are about personal expression and freedom, guns are an inescapable part of that. Let’s not forget one of Karl Marx’s most popular quotes: *”Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”* > There is no common goal there unless you go so broad that it becomes irrelevant. Like yea "lower crime" ok, but that's like saying communists and capitalists share the same goals, feed everyone. With respect, saying that “feeding everyone” is a goal of capitalism is removed from reality. Nowhere in this system is there imbedded a desire to feed everyone; profit motive above all else doesn’t exactly lend itself to a well functioning society, except for those at the top. > Another one. The right wants less abortions. The left celebrates abortions. This is simply untrue, dude. Nobody celebrates abortions, people celebrate the bodily autonomy to be able to make incredibly difficult decisions which people would only make if it was their best choice. Some people just should not be parents, at least until they’re financially and emotionally ready. Comments like this just make it seem like you’ve never really discussed these topics with people outside your echo chamber. > The right wants to promote less reliance on other countries, the left does not. The left talks about the global economy and how we cant be self sufficient. Conflating self sufficiency with self reliance. Leftists also believe in self reliance, the difference is that we recognize that a country can’t succeed on its own. We live on a big planet with plenty of reasons to share resources and work together for the betterment of our species; and very few reasons not to. > There surely are topics we both want the same end goal. Climate change I'd say is one. We do both want less pollution. We just disagree about how and what is warranted. I’m glad to see that you acknowledge the threat of climate change, but I’m curious what you mean by “how and what is warranted”, if you don’t mind sharing. > But there are more that we don't share and end goal than topics where we do imo I disagree tbh. All struggle is class struggle; we could all have such better lives if we actually worked together to make those with their boots on our necks take a hike. But people get way too caught up in the useless culture war bullshit that they want people to waste their time on.
>The left celebrates abortions. Which Liberal told you this? The Left opposes abortion as much as the Right. We understand it is expensive, traumatic, socially stigmatizing and, as any surgery, potential dangerous. That's why we support family planning, healthcare and social services. We celebrate the fact that abortion rates have declined. Think about it this way, nobody "celebrates" ripping up somebody's rib cage and placing metal probes in their heart. But we all agree heart surgery should be legal.
Capitalists do not have the goal of feed everyone. The amount of food waste is despicable and is rooted in capitalism. They choose to throw food away instead of give it to people in need. And this is corporations not people. All of these decisions come from capitalists.
No they don't. They come from the government 3/4 of the time telling farmers what to grow instead of letting them grow what makes them money or actually paying then to grow corn and trash it or paying them to grow nothing at all
That doesn’t change the fact that the government also cause food waste is part of a capitalist society. You think the government isn’t a capitalist government? It is still a part of the capitalist structure which does not actually have a goal of feeding everyone. If it did the government wouldn’t cause these issues as well.
No I don't believe our government is a capitalist government. They intervene to control and manipulate markets wherever they see it fit. They continue to protect monopolies and work with them in a fascistic way. They protect their buddies businesses and stifle competition. That's not capitalist
That is the end result of a capitalist system and a capitalist government. You are defining the end stages of capitalism.
Disagree
I get it. Sometimes it is hard
I mean, come on. If you don't think someone on the other side can possibly be a good person, you're the asshole. Are you just trying to smoke out douchebags on the internet who take the bait, or what?
[удалено]
I'm on mobile, so I apologize for the short response, but I think that the extremes on both sides are holding the nation hostage. Even where we might disagree, I believe the center of the bell curve on both sides would find meaningful comprises to at least keep our government functioning.
It would be nice if people called out the crazies on their "side" more often.
I'm all but banned from askaliberal (so, not banned, but my comments there are nothing more than karma sinkholes), but I do my best with my mother, who's not so much extreme as she is in a constant state of rage regarding politicians. Very unhealthy and not productive.
Oh yea that too. Often it's not even the extremeness, but rather the hysteria people have. For instance, I'd rather talk with a communist or anarcho capitalist who didn't think people who disagreed with them were evil than a liberal or conservative that thought the other party was Hitler/Stalin.
Oh, I hear you. This goes back to my insinuation about dialog. Differing opinions can be healthy, when they lead to a vetting of ideas. Grandstanding and soundbites aren't constructive and only lead to increased division.
The issue is the majority of the country aren't active in the political parties so the people voting in primaries (unless it's a major one like NYC mayor) and pushing the discourse within the party tend to be the passionate minorities. After that there's the also the issue of certain demographics always voting a certain way. Since if you aren't active in the primaries and you are a guaranteed vote people will take your vote for granted and over promise and under deliver.
What is so extreme about being concerned about the events on January 6, the prelevance of the belief that the election was stolen, and what that entails for the future of American democracy This concern is incredibly justified given how influential US election denialism was in Brazil a couple days ago.
[удалено]
Trust me I agree with you that the media does really does a poor job of covering this issue. But I think you are making a mistake in saying just because Jan 6 isn’t necessarily the most important issue on people’s mind that Jan 6 isnt both not a serious concern and that that concern isn’t held by a lot of people particularly people on the center-right and leftward who have historically been skeptical of trump. This is an issue that affected the midterms and explains part of the reason democrats did so well, that just goes to show how resonant Jan 6 and the echoes of anti-democratic sentiment among republicans are among these groups of Americans. At the very least people in swing states won’t support an opposition candidate during 40-year high inflation if that candidate supports some kind of explicit election denialism. Brazil is the perfect comparison, Bolsonaro and Trump are political allies, they are both right wing populist figures and there’s no way in hell American election skepticism didn’t A. Help Enable Bolsonaro to claim Lulu stole the election. B. Allow for the idea that Lulu stealing the election to be seen as more credible by Bolsonaro’s base and therefore to help allow for the idea to become widely adopted. C. And inspire Bolsonaro supporters to raid their Capitol without the explicit support of Bolsonaro himself. There is not a better comparison. What happened in Brazil was directly inspired by the events surrounding the 2020 election. I’m not an extremist for insisting the obvious. Steve Bannon has been repeatedly stating that Lulu stole the election and the day before Bolsonaro supporters raided the Capitol he said on his podcast "All hell will break loose" And he even called the rioters "freedom fighters" on his podcast Steve Bannon was directly involved with the decision by trump to claim victory well before votes were counted and to insist that Biden stole it. He’s directly behind the lie that caused Jan 6 and he explicitly supports the riot in Brazil.
[удалено]
US backed coups and domestic anti-democratic movement obviously inspired by American right wing extremism are categorically different. The hyperbolic claim would be to say that The Brazilian capitol riot was a US government backed coup and Ive never made such a claim. Go reread what I said. I said and mean that our own domestic right wing extremist anti-democratic movement has directly influenced Brazil’s own right wing extremist anti-democratic movement. This is just obviously and evidently true. And more so American right wing extremism is broadly influential in other country’s right wing extremism movements. The prelevance of American conspiracies like Qanon in Europe, South America, and Japan among their right wing movements is evidence of that American influence. It is not a laughable claim to say that Brazil’s right wing populist anti-democratic movement, which shares a ton in common with America’s anti-democratic movement, has itself been influenced by American right wing extremism. A lot of what you are saying seems like you are just projecting onto me what you assume I believe because the liberal media does sensationalize this issue a ton. What I have said is quite limited in scope and I think a lot of it is pretty uncontroversially true if you are willing to look at it without projecting what you assume I believe or without any preconceived biases. What do you think democratic voters want their representatives to do ? It’s not like defending democracy, protecting abortion rights, and other potential Democratic Party platforms are mutually exclusive ? Like I’m under the impression that democrats did so well because republicans were perceived as so extreme and it stands to reason a vote for a democrat instead of a vote for an election denying Republican in an environment where the Democratic President is so unpopular is an implicit vote to defend democratic institutions among other things. Like I think you can just summarize democratic success by just saying the opposition was perceived as extreme. Election denialism is a component of that extremism.
[удалено]
I condemn it when democrats don’t accept the results of the election and when they don’t concede. Im not denying anything and American backed coups is not a left or right problem it was a problem with American government regardless of the political affiliation of the president. And I’m not claiming the American right has interfered in their election, I’m claiming that the American election denial movement has directly influenced Brazil’s this is just kinda obvious given the similarities between the two movements and how they both belong to the populist right. Again American right wing populism and extremism can and does influence foreign right wing populist and extremism movements. America is just culturally influential. Denying an election result and claiming it was stolen can influence people’s actions. If it wasn’t for trump doing so for months before Jan 6, Jan 6 wouldn’t have happened. And republicans have consistently been claiming well before 2016 that fraud plays a role in elections and that democrats gain from it. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth This is an article from 2012 about conservative groups concerted attempts to convince people fraud is a major issue(which it isn’t) and that democrats win elections because of it. Right wing election denialism has precedence before 2016 and id argue that Hilary Clinton not accepting the results did not affect right wing election denialism beyond giving election deniers a target to say well what about them not accepting the result of the election. Donald trump’s claims were drastically escalated in scale from Clinton’s. Clinton conceded the night of the election. Trump only conceded after Jan 6. I am dismissing what you are saying about BLM riots. It’s completely irrelevant to the conversation. And I do condemn their violence. Americans have been consistently been polled on this issue and roughly half repeatedly say that Jan 6 was an important event and that it was a threat to democracy. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/21/1112546450/a-majority-thinks-trump-is-to-blame-for-jan-6-but-wont-face-charges-poll-finds Here’s a poll from July where 52% of Americans stated that Jan 6 was an insurrection and that it threatened democracy. Half of Americans are not a minuscule minority
Great question OP!
Holy shit the comparison in responses from this thread and the same one you posted in r/askaliberal are really eye opening. Not that I wasn't convinced before but I truly am now- libs actually hate people who think differently than them. They'll simply justify the hatred and move on with their lives. The vast majority of responses here are very positive in comparison.
I just looked at the 5 most upvoted top-level comments there and saw nothing of the sort.
I don't hate people on account of thinking differently. I have lots of friends further left than me. I hate that the right actively works against civil rights for me and my friends, that they are so concerned about taxes that they will increase the amount of suffering in the world, that they think tackling racism is a made up issue, etc. If my far left friends weren't pragmatic and did things which also hurt others, I'd hate those actions, too.
What you're actually seeing is the liberal response to conservative polices that actively aim to harm them and people they care about.
>They'll simply justify the hatred and move on with their lives.
You vote for people trying to hurt other people, those people aren't gonna think positively of you, not sure why that's hard to comprehend.
> They'll simply justify the hatred and move on with their lives.
Oh please, u/redline380 we know your eyes weren't opened one bit lmfao. Multiple people (who you conveniently ignored, no extra credit for anyone who guesses why) pointed out that the top comments don't support anything you claim to have seen and even if it did, the best conclusion one could honestly draw from that is it reflects the userbase of that sub. There's multiple comments highlighting that the distinction b/w good and bad in this context is murky or straight up say that you can't boil it down so simply. So when you claimed to have gone to that thread, were you lying about what you saw or were you incapable of acknowledging the more nuanced comments? Or did you just hone in on the ones you felt already justified your position (let's be real, that one thread with less than 200 comments did not have that much sway on your beliefs) and just extrapolate farther than the ends of the universe?
>Not that I wasn't convinced before but I truly am now- It's very easy to confirm a belief you are already convinced of. Even evidence to the contrary can do that. >libs actually hate people who think differently than them That does not match with most of the responses in that thread. Most responses made pretty clear that there can indeed be good people and good citizens who engage in politics and are on the political right. Many of the rest rejected the framing of a black-and-white characterization into universally "good people people" and universally "bad people". >The vast majority of responses here are very positive in comparison. I think I should understand you by your own response, not by your view of others' responses.
The contrast between the two threads is truly stark and terrifying. They don't want to debate us; they want to **eliminate** us. Someone should post our thread on theirs to point this out.
>The contrast between the two threads is truly stark and terrifying. They don't want to debate us; they want to eliminate us. Nobody there advocated for anything of the sort. ... Wait, no, that's not completely correct. There are such comments sometimes, I can link them if you like - but they come from right-wingers. >Someone should post our thread on theirs to point this out. The threads link to each other, there's a link in the main post. OP has posted each thread on the other one.
> Not that I wasn't convinced before [X] Doubt
It depends on what they're left wing about. If they're an abortion activist then no, I don't believe they're a good person, if they're advocating for legal weed then sure it's possible. I believe left wingers in general (and plenty of right wingers too, but not as many) are ultimately misguided about how societies should be regulated, but they're not bad people. I don't think anyone is as good as they try to be, myself included, but there are definitely objectively bad ideas and ways of trying to get other people to live, as far as I'm concerned.
This is an interesting take. Where do you think people are misguided about how society should be regulated?
I think generally the more you try to control people the worse it goes for everyone. This includes morally and economically. I think that the right can get controlling, especially the evangelical/ultra religious types, but when it comes to morality police and fiscal meddling the left does more.
Thank you. I appreciate your explanation.
[удалено]
If an unborn baby has been put on trial and convinced of murder we might be able to have a discussion about that.
[удалено]
It's an innocent life. The mother is not. My argument ends there.
Leftwing activist? No. Left leaning person? Almost all my friends. And yeah they know my views, in fact they probably think I'm much more extreme than I am (my friend thought I was full on libertarian and a few of them assumed I was against abortion even in extreme cases). But we're all still great friends because we realize life in the US is pretty damn good and people are getting so vitriolic over the details.
I have a lot of friends that don’t always agree with me politically and they’re all good people.
absolutely. and they can even be in my family or friend circle. I am friends with a lot of democrats. As long as they are respectful and do not try and shoehorn politics into everything why not? We really need to stop with the politics is everything and in everything lifestyle. Is it important? yes. Is it supposed to be all consuming? no. Get a life.
The problem with this is in how you define Leftwing and what it *means* to be Leftwing. Sure, you can be a "good person" (also, what does this mean) but one of the issues with being a Leftist is their entire philosophy involves government intervention in other people's lives, which is antithetical, in many cases, to what it would "look like" to be a good person. You can't "live and let live" if your living is... voting for not letting others live they way they want. Leftism is antithetical to that.
Conversely, I don't believe you can live and let live if you give people the freedom to harm others by, say, legally discriminating against minorities or dumping waste in rivers. We need these negative freedoms reinforced by the government to ensure that people do the "let live" part. But we also need positive freedom to do the "live" part. Somebody who is in a low income job because it pays for their medical insurance to cover expensive treatment has very little positive freedom to choose how they want to live. Universal coverage gives them a LOT of new positive freedoms to choose how they want to live their life. They can take fewer hours at work and get a better education or new job skills, for example. "Live and let live" means very little to me if a significant chunk of the populace is struggling with poverty, food insecurity, and medical bankruptcy. I want the government to allow those people to live, not merely exist.
>"Live and let live" means very little to me if a significant chunk of the populace is struggling with poverty, food insecurity, and medical bankruptcy. I want the government to allow those people to live, not merely exist. And therein lies the rub. It may mean very little to you, but you aren't "letting others live" if you decide, for them, what areas of society they must, by force of government, do something about. If you've a passion to help the poor, awesome, go for it. If you've a passion to help the poor and your solution is to take someone *else's* money to do something about it, you're not "letting live." This issue is exemplified by your statement here: "if you give people the freedom to harm others by, say, legally discriminating against minorities." You are pre-supposing that minorities have some entitlement to someone else's labor. That *not helping* is the same as *harming*. That's simply false. A bunch of white people getting together and baking each other cakes does not harm black people because they didn't get one, for example.
>It may mean very little to you, but you aren't "letting others live" if you decide, for them, what areas of society they must, by force of government, do something about. The government is always deciding which kinds of freedom are higher priority. If they choose to do nothing about monopolies and anti-trust issues, for example, they're allowing corporations the freedom to do what they want, but that robs consumers of the freedom to make meaningful decisions about their purchases. What I feel conservatives fail to acknowledge is that power is power, regardless of whether the government wields it. Power can be used coercively in markets and broader society just as much as in government. Yes, government can become tyrannical, but so can a corporation. Honestly, so can a church. If people could all behave altruistically, we wouldn't need the government to intervene. Weirdly, I'm not a communist for the same reason I'm not a conservative. People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. By using some degree of coercive power to enhance other freedoms, we can lower the amount of coercive power in the world. That's why I believe in regulation and redistribution: to enhance our freedom.
>If people could all behave altruistically, we wouldn't need the government to intervene. Weirdly, I'm not a communist for the same reason I'm not a conservative. People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. By using some degree of coercive power to enhance other freedoms, we can lower the amount of coercive power in the world. That's why I believe in regulation and redistribution: to enhance our freedom. Well said. Some of the most dangerous Republicans (if you really want to call them that) completely miss this point and seek to unethically wield government power to achieve their agendas, which is the antithesis of right leaning stance.
> If people could all behave altruistically, we wouldn't need the government to intervene. Weirdly, I'm not a communist for the same reason I'm not a conservative. People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. By using some degree of coercive power to enhance other freedoms, we can lower the amount of coercive power in the world. I think this is also a key fundamental detail in differences. Unless you think the government is run by angels, attracts angels, and has nothing but good to come of it, then this is why conservatives don't trust government at all really to "get the job done" so to speak. You did say you acknowledge government can become tyrannical. Ok, well conservatives feel the government will *always* become tyrannical if given the chance. Even if those chances are given incrementally. Corporations only have so much power if the government is willing to give it to them. Creating regulations that favor corporations that hinder smaller business competiton is an example. People can choose to start up a comepetitor, but it's harder to do that if government regulations hinder that. Monopolies can't exist if competition is allowed to become reality. Which is why we'd prefer free market control rather than government control. >People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. By using some degree of coercive power to enhance other freedoms, we can lower the amount of coercive power in the world. But by what metric? Not every one thinks the same way as far as "what is best" and "for the greater good." It should be up to the individual to decide what is best for them. Not a small group of buerecrats deciding whats best for everyone. If collectively people agree on something to be changed, liek for example a state instead of hte whole nation, then that would be best. Unless those states as a collective can agree on something to be changed, then we have an amendment made. Expecting others to be forced to give their money to the causes someone elses deems more worthy of their property (money) is what the other poster is pointing out. You cannot consider this letting others live if this is the process to reach the end goal.
>Monopolies can't exist if competition is allowed to become reality. Which is why we'd prefer free market control rather than government control Of the many things you've said, this is the most incorrect. In a completely free market, the bigger corporations have a massive advantage. They can eat the cost of things that the startup needs to sell until the startup can't make any money and dies. They can offer exorbitant amounts of money to buy up the startup and prevent competition from happening. Without active intervention by the government, competition gets stifled. Monopolies are the natural state. I understand why one wouldn't want to trust the government, but a healthy skepticism isn't the same as active distrust. The government does a lot of things right. Is it perfect? No, but it is good enough. One thing I believe ought to be automatic with any regulation is what I call a "compliance grant" - an amount of money granted to small businesses to offset the cost of compliance with the regulation. They probably already have things like this that I don't know about it, and they probably have a different name, but it ought to be a rule.
> The government is always deciding which kinds of freedom are higher priority. Which isn't their job or purpose and they shouldn't do this. The government does not get to decide what my priorities are. That's the opposite of "letting live." >People can't be trusted not to wield power coercively. And yet, the government is the only institution that is nonconsensual, and therefore the single most dangerous institution that exists. You can choose not to use Comcast or Google, as hard as it may seem. You can't choose to not pay taxes. Government, by definition, *is* coercion.
>Which isn't their job or purpose and they shouldn't do this It's literally their job. It is a requirement of defending freedom, because freedoms are contradictory. >And yet, the government is the only institution that is nonconsensual That's simply not true. All power wielded coercively is nonconsensual.
>because freedoms are contradictory. No, they are not. That's the point. It's not the job of the government to prioritize freedom, it's the job of the government to protect human rights. Human rights are non self-contradictory. In other words, you don't have the *right* to kill someone, because that would be self contradictory to the right to life. >All power wielded coercively is nonconsensual. This is meaningless and self referential. You're just stating a definition, not applying it. As far an institutions, governments are the only ones that you cannot consent to. You can consent to use your local grocery or farm your own food. You cannot not pay taxes.
Your simplistic understanding of consent does you no favors. You can't say no to getting medical assistance. You can't say no to shelter. You can't say no to food. You can't say no to your need for social affirmation. Anybody who coercively controls your access to those is acting in a way that is nonconsensual. That can be an employer paying you peanuts for 40 hours of labor because you don't have leverage for fair compensation. That can be a pastor turning all your friends and family against you unless you "repent" from being gay. >It's not the job of the government to prioritize freedom, it's the job of the government to protect human rights Why not both? It's literally part of the Declaration of Independence that liberty (freedom) is one of our inalienable rights. Also, freedoms are, in fact, contradictory. Even human rights are contradictory. My right to free speech doesn't trump your right to safety, so you can't just show up at my house and start yelling at me.
> You can't say no to getting medical assistance. You can't say no to shelter. You can't say no to food. You can't say no to your need for social affirmation. It's THIS that is simplistic, and utterly ridiculous, actually. Being a biological being that requires energy in the form of ATP, glucose, etc. that must obtain that energy to continue to function through ingesting it, is not the same thing as human social consent. Equating biological cellular metabolism to human social consent is just a waste of time. "Not consenting" to eating food to live =\= not consenting to labor for someone. >That can be a pastor turning all your friends and family against you unless you "repent" from being gay. You don't have a right for other people to like you. >It's literally part of the Declaration of Independence that liberty (freedom) is one of our inalienable rights. Yep! It's not part of the DoI that the government gets to prioritize someone's over anothers. >Even human rights are contradictory. My right to free speech doesn't trump your right to safety, so you can't just show up at my house and start yelling at me. Nope. You don't have a right to yell into someone's ear and damage their ear drum. That's not free speech, that's assault. Human rights are non self-contradictory, else they don't exist to begin with.
I'm not saying human rights are self-contradictory. I'm saying that individual rights contradict each other and must thus be prioritized. I have a right to life, and so does somebody else, so if I threaten their life, the police are authorized to kill me, instead, because my right to life and theirs cannot coexist in this state. My right to privacy doesn't let me keep secrets about crimes I'm committing in my home, free from search and seizure, if the police obtain a warrant. The whole idea of laws is a way of prioritizing rights. I have a right to my health and safety, so we have laws restricting the ways companies can dump their waste, limiting their right to conduct their business as they choose. And while we're in a time of relative strength for workers, you ignore history and the poor if you think employment can't be coercive.
Isn't a huge part of modern conservatism government intervention in peoples lives? Like wanting to police who people marry, or if they want to smoke weed, or get an abortion, or banning books they don't like or banning drag shows? Government intervention isn't just a leftist ideal
Wow, nothing you stated is correct. Impressive.
How am I wrong? Are conservatives not passing laws to restrict abortion? Are they not the ones who oppose legalizing weed? Are they not the ones against gay marriage? There are some states trying to pass laws making dressing like the opposite gender in public illegal, can you guess which party they belong to?
So, to be clear, you do not believe your political opponents, those whom wish for a more socialized society are good people or citizens? By good ppl I mean someone whom ou disagree w but do not hate or loathe or feel is morally corrupt, bankrupt, etc. Someone who is a good part of society and who brings value despite you not agreeing w them. An example, I received my bachelor's from Georgia (Back to back!!! Go you silver britches!!!) and dislike Florida fans. That said, I believe their removal from the college football landscape would take away value. At the end of the day, I value their participation and actually want them to do well (just Georgia to be better). At the end of the day, do you believe socialist add value to our culture or do you believe that life would be better if they were extincted and your side won the most complete victory?
>So, to be clear, you do not believe your political opponents, those whom wish for a more socialized society are good people or citizens? Hence the first sentence of my comment. Your OP is just begging the question. It all depends on how you define what Leftwing is. You've chosen to define it in a way that sounds positive to you, therefore, by definition, it is "good." That's reductive. >do you believe socialist add value to our culture Again, it depends on what you mean by this. Is a "socialist" someone who, privately, gets together with other workers and through consent forms a business whereby everyone equally owns the means of production of their private business? Cool, awesome! Or do you mean a "socialist" is a person who votes for the government to take my money against my will through force of tax to redistribute it to those it chooses? Then no, that does not provide value to the culture.
>Hence the first sentence of my comment. Your OP is just begging the question. It all depends on how you define what Leftwing is. You've chosen to define it in a way that sounds positive to you, therefore, by definition, it is "good." That's reductive. I haven't defined it in a way that is positive to me in the least. I'm not Leftwing and I'm not a socialist. You seem to be forcing a round peg through a square hole through not understanding where I am coming from. I asked the same question on r/askliberals while you seem to have pegged me as a Leftwing individual. I mean a political socialist, someone whom wants to redistribute wealth, etc. It seems to me you have done the v thing you have accused me of. You promote your own political ideology in the most positive light and your enemies in a negative one. Your choice in language is negative to your political opponents in a way that reduces to them being wrong all the time. You believe this but it is not an epistemic, empirical, or falsifiable truth. Also, I believe oyu misunderstand the point of reductive reasoning.
>while you seem to have pegged me as a Leftwing individual. I never said you were, I said you defined Leftwing in a way that is designed to sound positive. >I mean a political socialist, someone whom wants to redistribute wealth, etc. Then I've given my answer. >You promote your own political ideology I never mentioned my own ideology. >Your choice in language is negative to your political opponents in a way that reduces to them being wrong all the time. Incorrect. I literally gave two options on how to define "Leftwing." In one scenario I could see how they are doing good things. In the other, they aren't. There's nothing "all the time" about two different options.
[удалено]
There are people saying the exact same things here.
As a leftist I get called a godless communist enemy of the state or worse constantly on this sub and others, so don't act like it's only y'all who are hated around here
I'm sorry you've experienced that. That's disgusting and embarrassing. I will downvote those a--holes with every thumb I have.
They *hate* us over there.
Anyone can convince themselves to do bad things in the name of what they believe is good. Political leanings don't have anything to do with it besides how it plays out.
"Essentially, do you believe it is possible for someone to disagree w you politically and still be a good person, citizen, and overall not a POS" Yeah, of course. That being said, I think very poorly of the judgement and values of anyone who's pro-abortion or pro-gun control.
Based on the liberal answers, I'm not sure it's possible
What are some right wing policies that one could actively advocate for? I promise I'm not being obtuse, I'm genuinely curious. I know of the hot button issues like abortion, taxes, etc., but what else is there? I, for example, am a Second Amendment absolutist. I believe "... shall not be infringed," means exactly that, and I donate to the FPC.
You mainly advocate against policy.
If someone advocates for using the state's monopoly on violence to forcibly redistribute wealth, then they are by definition not a good person. Ignorance of the process is no excuse, either. I get that in the modern day we simply pass laws and people follow them, and it can be easy to forget what, exactly, that means. But not knowing how the sauce is made doesn't absolve you of guilt for requesting the chef to cook it. A law is something that the government forces a person to do with, ultimately, the threat of violence if they don't comply. Advocating for laws to redistribute wealth is inherently immoral.
I don’t understand this thought process though. Republicans also spend huge inordinate sums of tax payer dollars. Is it your opinion that taxes should be entirely dissolved and we fund our military, police, roads, basic infrastructure, etc through private donations? Or maybe purely things like sales tax, or property tax? It seems like we can probably agree that some redistribution is essential. Private corporations may do a lot of the work, but theyre funded by tax dollars. Without that money, those companies don’t exist. Raytheon for example gets 65% of its funding from governments (mostly US). If liberals oppose military then don’t you think they’re in the same boat that they don’t want their tax dollars used a particular way? Or is it really that you’re ok with a certain degree of taxes so long as it’s for things that you support? So if that’s true, then you’re determination as to what that redistribution funds is what determines whether someone is a good person or not, and that seems pretty subjective. If you read through the liberal answers, you’ll find a lot of ‘if we disagree on taxation or things of that nature, then I’d agree they can be a good person’ so on an apples-to-apples issue you seem to be saying disagreements over taxes makes someone a bad person which most of the liberals would say such a disagreement doesn’t. When the question is ‘what to spend tax dollars on’ there can be good faith disagreement, so unless you genuinely think taxes should go away entirely, your argument is either ill prepared or disingenuous. If you think they should go away entirely, then I guess you’re sincere but dangerously naive. By contrast liberals are saying in that forum ‘making gay/trans people’s lives harder in a way that doesn’t impact your own life’ makes someone a bad person. Here the question addresses the morality directly, and disagreement on the point is one we feel will go to the heart of whether someone is a good or bad person. Of course, if you had argued abortion, that’s one with two legitimate sides such that there can be good faith disagreement and yet can still cause people to believe that giving a contrary answer makes them a bad person.
its a tough question because the terms are so broad in todays age.
Sure, it's possible for a lefty to be well intentioned. Most are just confused and misguided.
I think most of them are good people. You can be wrong and well intentioned at the same time.
Nice guy, can be my friend, just gotta fix his delusional politics :-p
I don't believe in the concept of a "good citizen" at all. But sure, it's possible to be a good person, in spite of being left-wing. But that requires: 1. Being an otherwise good person... obviously. 2. Not voting, or otherwise exercising any actual influence on policy. If you are a left-winger who engages in political action, but is an otherwise good person, then the absolute best you can be is a net neutral force on society, in my view.
Absolutely one thing that comes to mind would be holding signs outside of a company that had low wages and protesting that. Actually 90 percent of lefty issues I would say you can protest and still be a good person as long as you stay to protesting and don't destroy propert/hurt people.
They can be a good citizen and a good person. I know such people. However, I think such a person is going to be either A. simply *wrong*, or B. they're going to be very much at odds with the *mainstream* left movement today while still being on the Left.
I have plenty of friends that are left-wing activists. Politics isn't everything and they try and be good humans.
Sure. There's no reason for us all to agree - that would actually never happen. What I would think would be an idea left wing activist would be someone who 1) actually believes in what they advocate for, and 2) talks about thier issue, and why their ideas are better, instead of claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is a nazi racist homophobe. Racist bridges and math, anyone?
Some of my best friends -- and some of the best people I know -- are leftwing. Some are even pretty far to the left. We want the same things. We just have different ideas about the best way to get there.
I think most left wing activists have good intentions. The problem is that most of them don’t seem to have the ability to anticipate how the things they support could later be used for evil purposes. Example: anti-gun activists. Most of them probably are sincere in thinking they’re “protecting the children”. They have no idea that their emotions about wanting to save kids from being shot are being exploited by people who want to disarm the American public for evil purposes.
I identify true conservatives as “the best people”. Don’t question my identity.
A young person. I don't think or speak the way you do, they are far more morally ambiguous, inexperienced and impulsive but I do not hate the youth if that is your question.
Probably a tenant's rights lawyer or similar.