Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain’t dead. Remember, don’t downvote for disagreements.
Y’all don’t need to keep adding things to lgbtq or lgbt+. The q or + takes care of everything
I think this is a better argument that “queer” is the best catch-all phrase. Honestly, come to think of it, if we can phase out LGBT in favour of “queer” entirely, then that gives republicans a harder time to separate the T.
I’m aro/ace and honestly same. I refuse to use any longer acronym because to me it sounds silly.
In a similar fashion, I’m also not a major fan of the pride flags with more than the rainbow. It’s fine for special occasions in order to draw attention to a cause that needs it, but not as the default. Adding black stripes, the trans flag, and intersex flag all at the same time seems ridiculous to me, and it only invites other groups to feel left out. Adding the black stripes, the trans flag, the intersex flag, or whatever to the flag for some event, protest, or personal reason is great but imo we shouldn’t permanently muddy the flag like that.
I’m mostly an anarchist. But.
I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I’ve been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understands a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is… Not good.
The problem is, I don’t know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It’s easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I’m also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. …And once you start going down that path, it’s really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.
I also don’t know how to handle the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.
You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I’m not an Anarchist, though.
I’ll give it a read.
My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).
I believe that the stance against nuclear power (specifically, nuclear fission, as opposed to radioisotope power used by spacecraft) by greens undermines the fight to stop global warming, and that many of the purported issues with nuclear power have been solved or were never really issues in the first place.
For instance: the nuclear waste produced by old-gen reactors can be used by newer generations.
Yeah same. It makes the elections quite annoying because I agree with the local green party in almost every other way. But to me nuclear power is an important way to get reliable green energy. Something that still provides energy when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn’t shining. And to me some of the arguments feel way too “feeling based” instead of facts based. That its unsafe or dirty.
Preferably we’d have fusion, but until we manage to get that going I think nuclear fission is a decent alternative. Not forever, but for the coming 50-100 years until we find a better alternative.
I am very very very left wing, BUT I can get really annoyed with a lot of those “on my side” advocating for the most idealist of all idealism, as if it’s a contest. Feels like a competition of “who’s the bestest and mostest leftist of all”. You scare people away and - not justifying it - but I get why some people get upset with “the left” because of this…
I am very very very left wing, but
Everytime I see someone say this I know without a shadow of a doubt that they’re a centrist liberal.
Lmao this thread is full of “very/hard far left” who then present very cold for a far left takes or are straight out libs.
wrong, I support the green party (multi-party system, you should try it)
So, Social Democrat. I wouldn’t call that “left wing,” in that it isn’t a Socialist platform. It would be “left” in comparison to the status quo, but not enough to be “very very very left wing.”
It would be if you’d compare their program to that of the other left parties here
As I said, left of the status quo, but not on the left.
Lol, thanks for proving my point
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
no, we have another party for that in Belgium (Vooruit). Groen has a leftist program
Groen are center left liberals.
With a program that’s more leftist than the actual left party, yes
Oh? Tell me more about their program to overthrow the liberal state and wrestle control of the means of production away from the owning class.
Abortion is not a moral hazard at all. Most people who might exist don’t. The whole “everyone agrees abortion is awful…” shit is obnoxious. I legitimately do not care. I am far more concerned about the lives of actual children. Once we seriously tackle that issue, we can move upstream, and this should be viewed as both incentive and a purity test for those who pretend to care about the “unborn.”
If i was aborted I wouldn’t care, because I would be aborted.
If they are so pro life I’d expect them to support universal healthcare but they very rarely do.
I’ve thought this for a long time. Until every living person has virtually every one of their needs met at virtually all times, abortion isn’t even on the table as something to worry about. We have a responsibility for what we have already, not some potential human that has plenty of other ways they would never make it to adulthood.
“everyone agrees abortion is awful…”
that doesn’t make them right btw. hitler was democratically elected too; the majority isn’t always right.
Do they present any actual arguments? That’s what would be interesting, because that is something that can be discussed.
I am unsure about when it stops being moral to terminate a foetus/baby. I think it’s somewhere between 6 and 14 months, but that’s just my gut feeling. Some people are astonished that I would even consider that it could be after birth, but it’s not like any sudden development occurs at the moment of birth.
but it’s not like any sudden development occurs at the moment of birth.
You mean other than breathing its own air and no longer being physically connected to its mother’s womb? I’d call that pretty significant. I would argue that the moment it breaths its first breath on its own rather than as a part of its mother’s uterus, it becomes a murder victim, not an abortion.
I don’t really see why breath is special.
Okay, to put it another way:
Once the child is born, it stops being literally a part of its mother and instead becomes an individual.
I suppose to me, one’s moral weight is in their mind. If someone has no mind – such as a brain-dead patient – then they aren’t really a person. Seeing as there’s no reason to believe there’s an immediate jump in neural development in a baby at the moment of birth, I do not believe it’s a special moment for the baby in a moral accounting sense. So I don’t think the baby becomes more intrinsically worthy of life at the precise moment it draws its first breath.
(For the parent, of course, it is a special moment, and in particular new options are available outside of the keep-or-abort dichotomy.)
As for being an individual, I don’t really see how the child’s autonomy is relevant. It’s still fully dependent on its parents and society and could not function on its own regardless, so this is a fairly arbitrary step on the road to autonomy.
I suppose to me, one’s moral weight is in their mind.
The problem that i see with that is the following: Assume a child has little neural activity (which, btw, is not true at all; children and newborns often have higher neural activity than grown-ups), but assume for a moment that a child had little neural activity, and therefore would be less worthy of preservation.
Now, somebody who has migraine, or has repeated electrical shocks in their brain, might be in a lot of pain, but has probably more neural activity than you. Would you now consider that since they have more neural activity, they are more worthy of life than you are? And what if you and that other person would be bound to the tracks of a trolley problem? Wouldn’t it then be the ethical thing to kill you because you have less neural activity?
I don’t mean to say that neural activity ∝moral weight. I am merely asserting that something without neural activity at all (or similar construct) can’t be worth anything. This is why a rock has no moral value, and I don’t need to treat a rock nicely.
I am less confident – but still fairly confident – that consciousness, pain, and so on require at least a couple neurons – how many, I’m not sure – but creatures like tiny snails and worms probably aren’t worth consideration, or if they are then only very little. Shrimp are complex enough that I cannot say for sure that they aren’t equal in value to a human, but my intuition says they still don’t have fully-fledged sentience; I could be wrong though.
The strongest evidence that shrimp don’t have sentience is anthropic – if there are trillions of times more shrimp than humans, why am I a human and not a shrimp? Isn’t that astoundingly improbable? But anthropic arguments are questionable at best.
I agree with my mom. 25 years is good.
For context she said that when I wasn’t 25 yet.
I agree with the following: If your mother tries to kill you, and dies themselves instead as a result of the conflict, they have no right to complain.
It is always moral if the woman doesn’t want the baby. Sometimes you don’t even find out you’re pregnant until it’s 7 weeks or so
While I think this is mostly true, I think there are some potentially problematic “edge cases”, for example do you think it would be moral for someone to abort all girls until they eventually have a boy?
I don’t like that but I don’t think they’d be nice to the girl if it was born either, so maybe it’s for the best
Is it moral to kill a 2-year old because the parents no longer want it?
I’m sure that abortion is fine for the first few months. After that, I am unsure either way, but I don’t feel strongly enough to wish to see abortion rights curtailed at all. So this is largely academic.
A 2 year old is a baby, an unborn fetus is a fetus, an extension of the parent. It doesn’t have thoughts, feelings, communication, and I would always value the parents life over its own.
If you give away a 2 year old you don’t really have to do much, but if you want to give away a 7 week old fetus, you still have to carry it to term, deal with discrimation and discomfort, deal with any medical issues that may arise, go through the extremely painful procedure of giving birth.
Just as you cannot be forced to donate your organs after death to help save countless lives, you cannot be forced to go through so much pain and trouble just to give birth to a life that doesn’t exist yet.
Let’s put aside 7-week old fetuses, as we both agree it’s fine to abort those.
I am pretty sure a 3-month-old fetus does not have thoughts or feelings to any significant extent. I am less sure about an 8 month old fetus; a lot of people who are 8 months pregnant do think their fetus has started to develop a personality. Regardless, I don’t see any particular leap in thoughts and feelings from just prior to birth compared with just after birth; at least, I don’t see why such a leap should occur at the moment of birth.
I don’t think being forced to donate organs is a good metaphor – at least, I don’t intrinsically value post-mortem bodily autonomy. A better metaphor I think would be being forced to do something in order for another person to live. Consider a Saharan desert guide on a 1-month tour for some clients. Once the tour begins, it would be morally reprehensible for the guide to abandon the clients to the elements; they must bring the clients out of the desert safely, whether they want to or not. It should be a bright-line case, because the lives of the clients rely on the guide, and the guide got them into this situation.
I don’t see 7-week old fetuses as being people; their lives are below my consideration. I do see an 8.5-month baby as being close in moral value to a 2-week old baby – I don’t know what that moral value is, but either killing both is fine, or killing neither is.
I can’t believe this word doesn’t seem to have made it into any part of this thread, but I think you’re looking for viability: the point where a fetus can live outside of the womb. This isn’t a hard line, of course, and technology can and has changed where that line can be drawn. Before that point, the fetus is entirely dependent on one specific person’s body, and after that point, there are other options for caring for it. That is typically where pro-choice folks will draw the line for abortion as well; before that point, an abortion ban is forced pregnancy and unacceptable, after that point there can be some negotiation and debate (though that late into a pregnancy, if an abortion is being discussed it’s almost certainly a health crisis, not a change of heart, so imposing restrictions just means more complications for an already difficult and dangerous situation).
There has been discussion somewhere in this tree about viability, but the word itself wasn’t used. Viability also has another meaning: the potential to someday be able to live outside the womb. I actually think the latter is more important morally speaking than the former. In a reasonable world, I would think that sensible pro-lifers should agree that if the foetus is doomed one way or another, why prevent an abortion? (Not that pro-life policies in e.g. Texas are sensible.)
But viability as you define it doesn’t mean much to me. Consider the earliest point at which the foetus is viable (could potentially survive outside the womb), versus the day before that. On the day before, the parent has the option to wait one day, at which point the foetus will become viable. Now compare this with a different situation: for the price of $20, a certain drug can be used to save a foetus’ life. Would you agree that in the latter situation, the foetus is already “viable”; it just needs a little help? If you agree with this, and since waiting 1 day is a similar cost on the behalf of the parent as paying $20, this means, the day before the foetus becomes viable, it’s already “viable” – the word has no meaning.
(If you disagree, and you think that the necessity of $20 drugs before the baby becomes viable means that it’s okay to abort it, I find that to be a strange morality, and I’d like to learn more. Or perhaps you think there’s something fundamentally different between waiting 1 day and paying $20.)
It’s not about the development of the fetus, it’s about the woman’s autonomy. So long as it’s still inside her, her right to choose takes priority over its right to live, full stop.
Why do you assert this? Based on what moral framework? Is it morally okay to abandon a baby to the elements after birth, in favour of the autonomy of those who would raise it?
Bodily autonomy is different than “freedom to go about your life as you see fit”. Carrying a baby and giving birth come with risks and responsibilities and it changes your body. All of this risk is for the baby at the expense of the mother.
Analogy: let’s say someone needs a kidney transplant or they will die. Turns out, you’re the only match. Donating a kidney is not risk free and your body will be changed for the rest of your life. Should you donate? Yeah, probably. Should you be legally forced to? Absolutely not.
To me, this analogy completely solves the issue. I can say that life begins at conception and still say that bodily autonomy is a right. It doesn’t matter if the fetus/baby is a person yet, as long as the mother’s body is being used to sustain them, then it’s the mother’s choice.
Let’s put aside legality, as that’s separate from morality. I am not claiming that abortion should be illegal.
My claim is that intrinsically the morality of killing the fetus just before birth ought to be similar to the morality of killing the fetus just after birth. It’s true that there is another term in the moral equation (whatever you think that is) based on bodily autonomy of the parent, which has a dramatic change at the moment of birth. I also believe that this bodily autonomy term ought to be less than the value of a grown adult life (maybe not of a fetus though). In other words, it’s worse for someone to die than it is for someone else to temporarily lose some bodily autonomy.
Please note that I’m not sure that the intrinsic value of an 8-month-old fetus is equal to that of a full-grown adult. If a newborn baby’s life is intrinsically worthless outside of future potential – say, because they don’t have sentience – then there is clearly zero problem with an abortion at any stage. But most other people think a newborn baby’s life is equal to that of an adult, and I think you can more or less substitute “newborn baby” for “8-month old fetus.”
In your analogy, I do think that the moral action is to donate one of your two kidneys. It’s an even better analogy if it’s only a temporary donation of the kidney somehow, and a yet better analogy if you had caused them to be in this predicament. In the case of a several-months pregnant person living somewhere with easy abortion access, the analogy is improved further like so: you had previously agreed to lend them your kidney, but you change your mind during the critical part of the surgery when it’s too late for anyone else to sub in their kidney (we can relax the stipulation that you’re the only match in this case; this is because I believe life is fungible at inception).
I mostly agree with you on the morality of abortion. The only problem I have with your analysis is with the temporary nature of pregnancy. There are risks in pregnancy that can have permanent consequences. Even if the birth goes off without a hitch, the mother is often left with weight gain, stretch-marks, and a risk of post-partum depression. Incisions are often needed to widen the birth canal and sometimes a C-section is required which is major emergency abdominal surgery. These risks are entirely taken on by the mother.
If we look at morality as having things people should do, and things people must do, only the musts should be law because the shoulds can be more open to interpretation. I wouldn’t assign my morality onto others. I would classify going through with a pregnancy as a should.
The analogy still works because the temporary loan of the kidney might have permanent consequences afterward. And it’s only an analogy. I still think those possible side-effects (save for the truly serious ones) don’t outweigh the death of a grown adult. Again, I’m not claiming that a grown adult is the same as a fetus.
I make this rather strange argument because I actually am a tentative proponent of post-birth abortions – but most people think such a concept sounds so outrageous that they assume I must be trolling. It’s generally only something people are open to considering after they can be convinced that there isn’t much of a difference between killing a fetus and killing a newborn.
I’m not going to engage with you on the topic of a women’s right to choose, or the meaning of bodily autonomy. On the off chance you’re not a troll, good luck with your research on this very well documented political debate.
deleted by creator
I believe that the vast majority of people are inherently good, and that tribalism and political divisiveness are some of the biggest issues we have to face.
Political differences arise mostly from different values, fears, education (or lack thereof), etc, but most people if you get to know them believe what they do because they believe it is genuinely good. But increasingly politics is focused on vilifying others, instead of trying to understand each other.
How do we tackle those problems you mentioned?
The reason I ask is I support your view here, but recently I’ve been downvoted a lot for having the opinion that I don’t blame people still using Twitter as I believe, like you, that most people are good people and can be reasoned out of what we believe are the wrong beliefs and that staying in those places to converse with them is better than Twitter becoming a right wing place and us chilling here in left wing ideology but at the end of that nobody learns anything they didn’t already know.
The hardest challenge in changing someone’s beliefs is that people don’t want to admit they were wrong or lied to or used or whatever and this makes it challenging if we can’t take our ego out of the equation.
Anecdotal proof that people can change is a YouTuber called JimmyTheGiant and he has mentioned several times how he went down the alt right pipeline but started to question things and now makes left leaning content.
Genuine question, why do you need to change peoples beliefs? Idk I find that 95% of people are pleasant to talk to and share your views with if you just speak with them nicely and try to understand their POV. And that applies to people who I vehemently disagree with.
I wouldn’t say I need to, but more I would like to.
If people are voting against their own interests because they have been lied to then don’t we owe it people to try and get them to see how the world works?
If people are hating on immigrants and poor people rather than the class system that is extracting all the wealth from areas then surely having more people onside makes it easier to change the system.
I agree that most people are good people and maybe just misinformed or have had their frustrations weaponised against them.
Have you heard of Daryl Davis? Black dude who convicted KKK members to quit just by being friends with them. I think empathy might be the key, I.e. its hard to be homophobic if your friend is gay.
That’s the energy I like to approach discourse with. Its harder online but it is possible.
I have heard of him actually, well I didn’t know his name but I’ve heard about him.
Exactly my point. You can’t expect people to change on their own and it’s on us to try and make the world a better place, as per our morals.
What’s your political creed?
I would describe myself as fairly left, but I’m not the most educated on accurate political terminology
I’m far left, but I believe that any citizen should be allowed to own any gun.
For what it’s worth, the far left (internationally) is traditionally pro-gun. I wouldn’t know what positions are about any citizen and any gun, but I wouldn’t be surprised either to hear a socialist advocate for it.
[…] The whole proletariat [i.e. worker class] must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois [i.e. owner class] democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.
That’s the far-left stance, generally.
Eastern front of ww2 made so much more sense to me when I realised the left could also have guns.
Stop out-woking one another, it’s okay to be right silently in order to bring in fence sitters.
If someone says, “my spirit animal told me late-stage capitalism is evil” welcome them to the club with open arms, focus on how you’re alike and trust them to work out their faux pas over time spent among like-minded peers.
Also cultural appropriation ≠ exploitation, we can stop clutching our collective pearls over these faux pas.
I vote we move to a new term, “cultural plagiarism,” which more clearly relates to e.g. a white person stealing a black musician’s work (as opposed to covering it and giving credit and royalties, which should be fine!)
In the spirit of my post, I’m glad you see a disparity in the term cultural appropriation like I do.
In the spirit of clarifying what I mean, cultural appropriation is using elements of another culture. What you described is exploitative, is very serious, and not what I’m referring to.
But I appreciate your input all the same.
I figured your objection to the term “cultural appropriation” is that people use it to refer to exploitative things as well as what I view as innocent things like a professional dancer who is white dancing to an anime song or something. That’s why I proposed a new term, to help differentiate these things.
Yes! I love it, thank you for that follow up. That’s exactly what I mean.
Cultural appropriation is specifically a method in which suppressing groups deny the cultural heritage of oppressed around. To call it a faux pas is ridiculous and ignorant
Respectfully, I disagree with your definition of cultural appropriation, but i agree it’s wrong to deny others the right to identify with their heritage or cultures.
Cultures borrow from one another, it’s just the nature of having multiple societies in proximity. I would argue (outside of the realm of exploitation) more often than not, cultural appropriation doesn’t come from a malevolent place, nor does it restrict anyone from otherwise enjoying their own heritage and culture. Some 9 year old wearing a Halloween costume of a Disney princess that isn’t their own race isn’t the crime we make it out to be. Worst case scenario it’s a faux pas, best case scenario, that kid took an interest in a group of people they are not familiar with and learned about them.
Also, as another commenter pointed out, the term cultural appropriation is used to cover a wide variety of offenses, so this disagreement could potentially come from that.
Edit: clarity
I don’t like racism against white people or sexism against men. Do I think they’re less urgent or worrying than bigotry directed at other groups? Sure. There’s less hate against men and whites compared to other groups, and bigotry against them doesn’t have the same social or political impact due to current systemic racism and sexism being directed at others. But bigotry is still bigotry, and I don’t like bigotry against anyone.
I think it’s important to differentiate systemic racism from bigotry. There are some people who have a definition of “racism” that actually means “systemic racism,” and they make a more compelling case that “racism against white people” doesn’t exist.
I’m of the opinion that systemic racism against white people is pretty rare, but you can find it in niche communities, not as much society as a whole. I also think of systemic racism as being about inequity rather than inequality; but if you were to consider it as being about inequality instead of inequity, then you could make a case that e.g. affirmative action is systemic racism against white people.
A lot of this is semantics, which is a distraction from real problem solving.
As a white man, it means nothing to me when someone uses my race against me. The historical context of oppression doesn’t accompany the insult. However, there have been times in my life when minorities have excluded me or shunned me for my race, which sucks, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to internet war over it.
That is ignorant to what racism actually is. Racism is not just a set of unconnected rude actions towards someone but specifically exists within a cultural context that subjugates certain groups. Racism upholds that oppressive framework and racial bias in statements and beliefs help to encourage that false framing of the world. White men aren’t oppressed in the same way that a racial minority woman is and to say it is racism or sexism all the same is to downplay those specific experiences and cultural norm that holds certain groups and the individuals within those groups down.
The way all of this is discussed and phrased paints a sort picture, in some peoples minds, of white men being evil. The problem is that this capitalist society is too isolatating, individualistic, and distracting for everyone to properly empathize with the struggles of others, so we end up with these people on the defensive. We’re left with a portion of the population supporting a proper biggot like trump to now justify they’re own existence.
If only we could have all been properly educated… but its all just distracting from the fact that everyone suffers from an oppressive and exploitative system, some more than others. But its probably about time for a more uniting class conscience form of rhetoric.
What’s the more uniting class consciousness? When is anyone saying white men are inherently evil? The fact is that they are rewarded for upholding existing frameworks in the US and Europe. Have you read Sakai’s Settlers? He goes over this quite well.
I have no clue what you mean about a more uniting rhetoric besides just denying reality in order to appeal to a group that is materially rewarded by the current system. We have to analyze things materially, not through lenses of trying to “reframe things to appeal to this group”.
That intellectual property, both copyright or patents, doesn’t serve its theoretical purpose and just acts as a legal shield for the monopolies of big corporations, at least in our capitalistic system, and it limits the spread of information
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music. In practice, all musicians need to be on Spotify through one of the few main publishers to make any decent money, and their music will be used for unintended purposes (intended for their contract at least) like AI training
In theory, patents should allow a small company with an idea to sell its progressive product to many big corporations. In practice, one big corporation will either buy the small company or copy the product and have the money to legally support its case against all evidence, lobbying to change laws too. Not to mention that big corporations are the ones that can do enough research to have relevant patents, it’s much harder for universities and SMEs, not to mention big corporations can lobby to reduce public funding to R&D programs in universities and for SMEs.
And, last but not least important, access to content, think of politically relevant movies or book, depends on your income. If you are from a poorer country, chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
And to add to that, scientific papers should be published in open-access journals, instead of Wileys et al. And Universities could run and host these journals, as it is part of their core duty: To preserve and spread knowledge.
Essentially, universities and libraries seem to have a lot in common. Both preserve and spread knowledge.
I believe it does function in as it does in theory, but the justification to the public is what you list as “in theory.” Regulations like IP laws are only allowed to pass because they support the profits of those who hold the IP.
I would love to see IP law burned to the ground. A more realistic goal in the meanwhile might be to get compulsory licensing in more areas than just radio.
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music.
You mean like with copyright (IP) laws?
Patents and copyright originated to protect everyone. Charles Dickens complained that his books were rampantly copied. Without them any invention by the little guy would be immediately stolen and ramped up into production at levels the little guy can never match. Why would I work on anything if it can just be stolen with no legal protection? Universities and SMEs constantly issue patents, if they can’t commercialize them themselves they can license them to someone who can.
chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
What? The internet is full of free info.
The real issues are things like:
-
Insanely long copyright periods. Sorry but your grandkids/Disney shouldn’t profit from your work. 70+ years later.
-
Patent camping. Either do something with it or lose it.
-
Patent lawsuit factories. The patent office makes money off of fees and is too quick to hand out patents that are overly broad or trivial. You have business that just hoard patents with no intention to use them except to sue others.
-
I don’t like extreme leftists (they live in a bubble) but they’ve been right about everything and they are our best chance at resolving economic disparity
Doesn’t sound like they live in a bubble, then.
I appreciate the recognition, but I think being right implies a lack of living in a bubble, right? Like, we might be annoying, but certainly not detached.
You can be Jewish and even support the idea of a Jewish homeland while also being fervently appalled by the actions of the state of Israel (Netanyahu, West Bank settlements, unarmed Palestinians shot/killed, houses being bulldozed, mass displacements).
Liberal zionists are still zionists
There’s countless invaluable Jewish voices in the anti-zionist movement of course, but what Jewish homeland could you support that wouldn’t be an ethno-state? /g
Agreed. Antisemitism != antizionism.
Im left leaning on many social issues but pronouns was never a necessary social construct hill we needed to die on.
I think that useless fight got us the full hard swing to the right.
Especially because you shouldn’t give a fuck about how people perceive you. You should be whoever you are and not care about labels.
-
Religion can be a force for good. For social cohesion and a feeling of belonging. That it often isn’t speaks more to the samesuch cultural and emotional rot that has affected literally everything than to religion unto itself.
-
It actually makes perfect sense for a country to want to limit or tariff importation of goods. This, if done right, can bring industrialisation into the country. You can’t have a nation that is all middle-managers, despite the First World’s best attempts to become that, it’s just fundamentally unsustainable. And while you can have a nation that just produces/exports raw materials, this is ultimately bad for the people in that nation.
-
I don’t really know what constitutes a “political creed,” really, so I don’t know how to answer.
He means who do you circlejerk with on tinternet
Poor choice of words, perhaps. I meant those who generally share your political opinions in other respects. For instance, “anarcho-communist” or “libertarian”
Sure, but I do feel that by the time you’ve picked a niche label, you’ve filtered out where you disagree.
I don’t think so. Labels only have so much resolving power. They represent people who are broadly aligned in values, but not necessarily on every specific issue.
For instance, I think most libertarians have individual dissent from their norm on various topics. It should be easy to find examples in the case of libertarianism, but I believe this applies to other political ideologies too.
“Libertarian” is far more broad than, say, Marxist-Leninist or Anarcho-Communist. When you go from “Marxist” as an umbrella to “Marxist-Leninist” as a category within Marxism, you are generally conforming to that specification’s tendencies. At that point of specificity, there are more “solved” questions than unsolved.
Oh yeah sure. More solved questions than unsolved seems like a good way to put it. But there are still points of dissent though.
