Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Like I said, there are certainly quite a few leftists who I would definitely not describe as good. But at least they are varied in that regard.
On the other hand....how many (prominent) right wingers are there, currently, in the US you could honestly describe as 'good'? And then, how many Rush Limbaughs, Alex Jones, Tomi Lahrens, Milo Yiannopoulos, Dinesh D’Souzas etc are there?
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Again, I specifically mentioned the immorality of the US right. But it's worth pointing out that the poster I originally responded to claimed that leftist politics were universally better than everything else. It's also worth pointing out that the most vile aspects of the US right come not from conservatism but from reactionary racial politics and religious dominionism.
![]()
![]()
But where? The Right Wing parties of Europe are mostly filled with racists too.
![]()
That leftists can be bad dont means that the Right wing is good.
I love mocking "burn the system" leftism, a LOT. But that dont means that I am a Right Winger.
The issue is that those views seems to be inherently build in the Right Wing view, unless you go for a Social Darwinist Dog Eat Dog right wing view that dont care about race...which is not really good neither.
Leftists can be bad, but the right wing seems to be Always Chaotic Evil.
edited 14th Apr '18 3:52:53 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
The problem is that "left good right bad" is an unbelievably reductive way to look at politics, and is based solely on western political sensibilities rather than any useful definition of the terms. As I said before, it's like saying red is the only good color. I believe it falls under the "not even wrong" fallacy.
edited 14th Apr '18 3:54:57 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.
You could give me a example where Right Wing is better? That is all who I ask.
Cases of people telling Communists to shut up is cheating, mainly because most of them were either 1)Leftists or Liberals by the definition of other countries or 2) Right for the Wrong Reasons (monarchists wanting to return Russia to a monarchy, for example)
I know that is reductive...but reality is reductive with that.
edited 14th Apr '18 4:00:07 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my countryI would nominate Angela Merkel's party as a sane, relatively good right wing party. I think it's the CDU. Or maybe the CSU, don't remember which is which, sorry.
Then again, they've got the Af D as another right wing party so...
Re,Alex jones crying
Alex Jones is now wanted for animal cruelty after milking crocodile tears
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverYeah, while there might be a few conservative elements within the CDU, they are really more centrist than anything else. The AfD and the NPD are the real 'right wing' parties in germany.
edited 14th Apr '18 4:16:08 PM by Forenperser
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianTo speak in extremely general and basic terms, political ideology breaks down thus:
- Progressive: The future will be best. Let's change things to make that happen.
- Conservative: The present is best. Let's change as little as possible.
- Regressive: The past was best. Let's change things back to that.
Progressive and Regressive ideology are the Left and Right ends of the spectrum, respectively, with Conservative ideology being somewhere in the center, but usually skewed more toward the Right, because changing things back tends not to be viewed in the same way as changing things forward.
The problem is that the past is pretty much never actually better for anyone but the members of whatever demographic was dominant in that period, and trying to keep things the same in the present translates into preserving those inequalities. So when you get right down to it, most forms of Right Wing ideology are about preserving or bringing back forms of special privilege that historically dominant groups feel they've lost as other groups have achieved aspects of the same treatment. This means that Right Wing ideology is usually inherently selfish at best, because it seeks to hold onto or bring back a social dominance for its adherents over other.
Alternatively:
- Progressive: Rock the boat!
- Conservative: Don't rock the boat, baby.
- Regressive: Unrock the boat!
- Extremist:
Don'ttip the boat over!
x5 One more time, you're conflating US political positions with broad political theory. Your whole point is that leftism or progressivism is universally good because it's good in the US and Europe. Conservatism is the politics of the status quo, progressivism is the politics of change. Neither one is inherently bad or good.
Imagine if someone told you there was no such thing as a bad democracy. That statement is kind of weird because democracy isn't just one thing that can be spoken about broadly. This is the same deal.
They should have sent a poet.And then came the French Revolution, where the anti-monarchist pro-republican side decided to demonstrate their views by taking the left side of the seating arrangement in the Estates General, in opposition of the pro-monarchist anti-republicans who took the right side to show their support of the still-in-power monarchy.
edited 14th Apr '18 4:35:51 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
It wasnt that the monarchist sitted in the right direction, the democracy fans sit on the left side?
With the exception that unless said change is something like a Communist society, there almost nothing that dont need to be changed.
Now, some things might be tolerated, but for example, things as Transphobia exist, changing the world to erase it is unambiguously a good thing. And I dont think that Racism can be allowed to stay.
I LOATHE the world "progressivism" to refer to ideologies because is basically identifying yourself as the good guy...which they pretty much are in most cases.
edited 14th Apr '18 4:38:34 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my countryHuh. Didn't quite make that connection. And come to think of it, droit(e) in French means both right in terms of direction as well as law (with a connotation of moral rightness).
Like the British monarch's coat of arms motto is "Dieu et mon droit" or basically "King/Queen by God and Right".
edited 14th Apr '18 4:45:26 PM by Hodor2
Native Jovian: The reason I wonder is because there was a big to-do a few months ago about Syria and Russia linking up their systems, so that Syrian air defense units would have access to more modern equipment and could fuse data from higher-end sensors. French and UK jets would have had to pass into the contested area to strike, and a lot of the standoff weapons fired passed through the range of Russia's highest-end BMD system. The only thing that was fired in response at all was essentially an unguided missile. Given that the Syrians have access to the Russian hardware the total lack of response was somewhat surprising.
Kazuya: So, what you're saying is that all changes are always good? Because that seems like a fairly surprising stance to take.
I use the word progressive because it's the actual political science term for favoring change in society. It's not a default good guy stance.
They should have sent a poet.It's not hard to imagine a US where the 2016 election was between Republican candidate Hilary Clinton and Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, with Donald Trump languishing in jail for a combination of multiple counts of tax evasion and breach of contract. Such a US would be mostly in line with Europe.
(I'm aware of the issues with the above scenario; I'm imaging a US where the Republican and Democratic parties evolved differently over the past 30 or so years.)
Historically speaking, anti aircraft defenses have seldom been able to entirely deny airspace to incoming aircraft.
As for rightwing, leftwing, and morality, it all depends on the assumptions one makes about the world, and our place in it. Conservatives generally believe that the world is inherently dangerous, that strangers are inherently untrustworthy, and that therefore place more value on group loyalty and respecting authority than social justice or protecting lifestyle choices. At the same time (because this is the US we are talking about) they value individual freedom from gov or institutional interference than promoting collective outcomes.
We can often find common ground with moderate conservatives around programs that promote the interests of a majority of citizens (a rising tide lifts all boats).
More recently a loose knit group of corporate interests and billionaires are promoting more extreme right wing propaganda based on populist, exclusionary politics because it provides cover for the tax breaks and deregulation they want.
But in and of themselves, whether conservative or leftwing political values are morally preferable depends on the individual.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.I use the word progressive because it's the actual political science term for favoring change in society. It's not a default good guy stance.
Unless is choosing communism or a ridiculously bad idea such as wanting destroy society like Pol Pot, I struggle to find a case where Political Changes arent good.
The issue is that regardless of what they think, they are still based on bigotry.
Gay people is not dangerous, a bunch of muslim inmigrants are not dangerous (any terrorist attack or muslim gang kills a minimun of people that is practically nothing compared to the saved lives).
I am a paranoic scared of everything and even I know that.
I respect authority, but guys like Trump are so chaotic and emotional to be respected. I am the biggest Law obsessed person that you can find, something that clashes me with other Leftists from time to time.
edited 14th Apr '18 5:02:09 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country![]()
You're still thinking solely in the sense of US and European politics.
Saying the status quo is always bad and change is always good is somewhat bizarre. Progressive movements in the US embraced eugenics and Social Darwinism, while many of us take a conservative stance on constitutional issues in the US. Progressives have a tendency to rush headlong into new trouble, while conservatives have a hard time letting go of old trouble. You need both, and saying that more change is always good is just shockingly wrong.
edited 14th Apr '18 5:00:40 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.

I wish I could be a conservative. Interpret that how you will.
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.