I consider myself left leaning. Insults won't change this.
>>82929975>this>>82929975>leaning
>>82929975we can be insulted together
>>82929975I consider myself a football.
>>82929975Do you believe transwomen are real women? Do you believe black people are IQ 100 and low crime like white folks?
>>82929975>I consider myself left leaning.Ok. I think you'll find a lot of people have things in common here, not all pare prescribed to the same political or ideological issues.
>>82929975Why? Honest question. Do you want leftist economics and social policy as they are commonly understood? Do you think they are overall beneficial when they are implemented? Frankly the evidence to the contrary is pretty damning.
>>82930000Czeched.
i hope you can look at the economic side of it rather than all the social justice/identity politics shit, at least.
>>82930000>Do you believe transwomen are real women?To tell you the truth, I don't believe there is such a thing as an ideal form "Woman" independent of the population of women. It's a vague concept, which is why biological essentialism doesn't really work. Not just because there are intersex people, but because apparently there's weird shit like women with XY chromosomes. That's not to say that the woke stuff can't go too far, but I have no problem understanding gender independent of biological sex. Of course, this stuff doesn't solve the problem of gendered bathrooms, trans in sports etc.>Do you believe black people are IQ 100 and low crime like white folks?No, I just believe that cultural and socio-economic factors play a big role.
>>82930028not OP but as a Briton i think post-war British socialism did nice things. it's not some magical 'fully automated gay space communism' whatever-the-fuck: they built social housing to replace slums. entire new towns. they founded the National Health Service so people who previously DIDN'T have access to healthcare did (no reliance on poor laws or charity or anything).as a modern example, our water companies are getting really rich and funnelling money abroad. but the actual water quality/infrastructure is getting worse. and you don't have a choice which water company you're with. before it was privatised, it was all public water boards (and if ANYTHING should be a public 'by the British people, for the British people' service, it's our fucking water).
Most people when pressed for their actual thoughts are left-leaning.Internet "rightism" seems to only consist of racism, sexism, phony religion, and appeal to tradition from a past they never experienced.Most people want more money, more freedom, and a society that doesn't leave so many people behind.Yes, I know, you're the exception, congratulations. Your contrarian of the month award is in the mail.
>>82930028I'm a bit even more pessimistic than that. I think drastic systematic changes will be needed or society will collapse due to demographic issues and ecological issues (not just climate change, that can be mitigated somewhat) but resource availability as well. It's less "my brand of leftism is great" and more "things are going to go from bad to worse if we don't change things".
>>82930068Except we're still living under post-war socialism and the country is a fucking doghole. The economy is in ruins, the NHS is a joke, the social contract has been utterly dissolved.
Left-leaning socially, right-leaning economically, basically the opposite of /pol/-style racist communism.
>>82930057>I have no problem understanding gender independent of biological sex. i think people already have, even if that's not the exact terminology they'd use.every time i see this sort of thing it's like there's a gaping void of phantoms they're arguing against: the implication is "SOME people say differences between the sexes AREN'T social/cultural, don't they?!"i have never, ever once seen someone say or suggest that, ever. it would have been ridiculous even before the current wave of trans/gender thinking.it's a sort of black-and-white way of looking at it. and there is a big overlap between the trans activists and legitimate autism, sorry to say.
>>829299751. actually calling yourself "left leaning" is an insult to yourself. it's like calling yourself a poor retard or a manchild. not all poor people are bad but it's objectively stupid and counterproductive to be politically left leaning as a general statement with no other context. Obviously, you're not from 1800s France.2. Insults do actually change this all the time. I guarantee that you saw many conservative ideas be ridiculed and insulted as a prompt for you to think there is an actual dividing line between right and left people.
>>82930088I swear whenever I see pol-tier posts about how we just need to use the welfare state for white people it makes me want to vomit. Economics has basically been solved and the answer isn't and never will be 'socialism'.
>>82930085I was skeptical of Brexit from the start and it still shocked me how badly it turned out. Obviously, countless problems existed before that, but it didn't help.
>>82930105I don't think economics has been solved, it's more like orthodox economics is leaky but at least evolves over time and patches holes. Socialism and unorthodox crap don't even have anything resembling an actual model to begin with. They think they can just vibe their way into prosperity by repeating thought-terminating cliches like mantras.
>>82930105>>82930119I wouldn't think of socialism just as Marxist-Leninism. There are plenty of Soc-Dem in-between. They probably won't be sufficient for the decades ahead, though.
>>82930103It's more of a conversation starter than anything. I know such vague labels don't clarify much. I wouldn't call them insulting though.
>>82930085true, it's all fallen apart over time. even the goodwill is gone. but they did actually pull things off for a while. decent housing stock at rates going to the council (REAL Victorian philanthropy has never been tried!)if i could wave a magic wand and bring e.g. energy or housing under public ownership, sure, i'd do it. that's not to say people at the top can't still be dodgy (Arthur Scargill was on the take, innit) but i'd rather the money and resources get redistributed more fairly. i'll even agree with those pesky evil 'far-right' 'nationalists' a bit here. i want British jobs for British workers, the money going back to help Britons. sounds gr8.
>>82930057Fuck, lefties out here with well thought out opinions and nuanced conceptualizations and shiiiiit>>82930103I agree with your point, identifying your entire political thought bimodally is a bit lazy. However, in the current political landscape people are polarizing to the "two sides" in response to increasing extremism and fascistic tendencies on the "right" (THEY AREN'T EVEN CONSISTENT WITH RIGHT WING PRINCIPLES, THE WHOLE SHIT SHOW IN THE US IS JUST UNPRINCIPLED SHITLORDS FALLING IN BEHIND A FAT TANNIN-STAINED HAS-BEEN REALITY SHOW HOST AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH)
>>82930072>more moneythat's capitalism which is far right>more freedomThis is a conservative concept. Left leaning means you want less freedom, but more security/stability. >society that doesn't leave so many people behindThis is left leaning, but also too abstract. The only way that leftists have considered solving this is by preventing people from getting ahead. In certain business transactions and innovative technologies yeah it might be good to cripple people who are too far ahead. But why does the focus often turn to murdering people who are simply too educated or self-sufficient?Nothing exceptional about being left or right, people just use buzzwords too much. Commie retards didn't want money, they wanted more direct power over the result of their labor and a more direct role in their communities in general. The contrast, and the vast majority of people included, is that normal people want more independence from their national or regional communities (e.g. freedom), and don't really give a shit about the company they work for as long as they get paid a reasonable amount.
>>82930133>true, it's all fallen apart over time.Yeah, because socialism absolutely kneecaps actual productive growth and relies on vast sums of money being extracted from the few remaining productive people to pay for everything. It's unsustainable by definition and we're seeing it play out in real time. Anything that did work was done by burning through accumulated wealth, selling out future generations through inflation and extracting ever increasing sums of money from productive people through taxes. It just doesn't work forever and is immoral to implement to begin with imo.>if i could wave a magic wand and bring e.g. energy or housing under public ownership, sure, i'd do it.We functionally have this right now and it's terrible. We absolutely lean towards planned economy rather than free market and the results speak for themselves - nobody can get a house, the stock is dogshit, energy is the most expensive in the developed world. Public ownership, unless existing under very specific circumstances, is a terrible idea and outside of a few very specific circumstances we see the same results - rationing, poor quality, high prices.
>>82930148You're a bit biased, you know.More money for the workers isn't just capitalism. I would say that it's not even the right framing, more freedom (including more free time) should be a better aspiration.>freedom is a conservative conceptThey're masters at selling you unfreedom under the name of freedom. At least libertarians, insane as they might be at times, offer some genuine freedoms. They do not go far enough either however, as freedom should include some material conditions as well, to the extent that it's possible (freedom from exploitation, hunger, disease etc.)It's telling that you see leaving fewer people behind as crippling those who are ahead, though. A bit of a victim mentality, except that it's coming from the richest in society.
>>82930079Unironically, and literally speaking, those systemic meme changes only happen if individual people like you make changes to help society. We can ramble on and on about how the climate is gay, but "systemic" is not a real person and doesn't care. All growth comes from people being motivated by new ideas and opportunities, not waiting for a politician to give them something. Collapse is never society-wide, it just rotates through the stagnant communities.
>>82930172I'd be more concerned about how much financialization is destroying the world. From shady deals that ruin entire communities, to all kinds of offshore heavens. Once that's sorted out and capital serves the people, even in the form of taxes, maybe we could be a bit more nuanced on where socialism goes too far (there were attempts at international taxation levels, likely destroyed by the US at the moment).
>>82930172that's fair enough, anon. i definitely disagree on a moral level, but on a pragmatic level would you accept some middle-ground between a truly free market and some state-enforced Soviet-style system?i think humans are generally collectivist, so i'm not just being cynical or misanthropic here, but i absolutely do not trust a select few people under a purely/more laissez-faire system. it won't all balance out nicely, the people/companies who want pure profit will min-max that profit.even the ne'er-do-wells. criminals, charvas, NEETs, whatever. they won't just go away, somehow. at some stage of planning this shit it's a practical issue even if you'd rather they all rot.
>>82930057>weird shit like women with XY chromosomes no such thing and either way abominable Genetic mutations do not destroy the concept of the norm, XX which is a female, the state of one's mind due to hormonal imbalances do not change XX and XY>cultural and socio-economic factors play a big roleoutdated lie built on liberal idealism that every man is an equal blank slate that can be molded into whatever you want
>>82930271>no such thing and either way abominable Genetic mutations do not destroy the concept of the normYou need to socially enforce the concept of norm to begin with, that is to say give an interpretation of the biological where it doesn't say anything itself.>outdated lie built on liberal idealism that every man is an equal blank slate that can be molded into whatever you wantThat's taking it too far in the other direction, I did not invoke tabula rasa in any way.
>>82930185>More money for the workers isn't just capitalismIf your starting point is "most people want more financial capital" then your starting point is that everyone wants to succeed in a capitalist system. That has nothing to do with being leftist. You're misrepresenting a talking point about redistribution and implying that most people are just motivated by "more" money, which is juvenile at best.>more freedom (including more free time) should be a better aspiration>They're masters at selling you unfreedom under the name of freedom>freedom from exploitation, hunger, disease etc.There's too much irony here, you are a dumb kid. BUT, yes American conservatives also have lost their understanding of freedom and in general government has become too large both in number of government workers and technological capacity. In terms of muting the richest in society, you get that from making money less valuable in certain ways, not by pretending you can handle that money better.
>>82930299>socially enforce You don't need to do this at all. Humans evolved through sexual reproduction and have an innate understanding of male and female. Genetic anomalies "somewhere out there in statistics land" don't actually have any influence on this. Do you need to socially enforce the notion that young children are weaker than massive adult men? I've seen some strong kids...
>>82930299>You need to socially enforce the concept of norm to begin with, that is to say give an interpretation of the biological where it doesn't say anything itself.i think that's doing a disservice to the women who consider it their nature and/or are fine with that norm. i'm not even talking about some tradwife shit. it really is the same way you and i might be fine with our "maleness", but have a problem with "men need to lift weights all day, be excellent providers, and die in wars!"https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/second-wave-feminism/zdhw382might be tl;dw but i found this collection of old clips and documentaries interesting. a lot of the campaign groups are ultimately/covertly religious. but what about the everyday cisgender biologically-female women of the 70s and 80s who just said, "i'm against inequality, but i'm actually fine with femininity"?
>>82930299>You need to socially enforce the concept of norm to begin withNot true and even if it were today we are seeing societies that simply allow unregulated individualism die out while the most backward barbaric countries have steady populations>I did not invoke tabula rasa in any way.The way you worded it made it sound like you did, "Purely socio-economic and cultural factors"
>>82930314>and implying that most people are just motivated by "more" money, which is juvenile at best.I do not share that view with the other anon, which is why I said that more freedom, as vague as that term can be, is a better aspiration. Maybe I'm not good at explaining it, if I were to give some general formula I'd say that "if most people want as much money as possible, they want to get it by working as little as possible" or something like that, but I don't think that helps us, I don't know.As for the freedom part, I'd say that being free to have abortions, do any drug you want, pay whoever you want for sex, surgically change your gender etc. counts as freedom to me more than anything conservatives have to offer under that term. I'm not suggesting that these things are good ideas, just that it's a more authentic use of the word freedom. A more balanced approach would increase that freedom further and even make it compatible with material freedoms. But conservatives offer nothing of the sort. They often just offer more freedom for the rich.
OP are you brown or not? This is relevant context for your diagnosis.
>>82930370I'm a pale white, possibly a bit Slavic if my family tree is anything to go by.
>>82930394Then i diagnose you with mental illness. Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins to cure yourself.
>>82930348That's, as far as I can tell, still within the social realm. I'm not saying there's no biological reality to gender, just that it cannot be reduced to it. Even if there is an essence to it, it's a bit more vague than that, hence femboys and masculine women.
>>82930000This is just outrage economy bait. If you look at classic left writers like Orwell, they don't even mention stuff like that.
and anyone asked or cares because?
>>82930401Okay, you have me intrigued. Why that book specifically? And would it help if I'm already an atheist?
>>82930422I do not need to be asked in order to speak out, least of all on an imageboard that often focuses on having conversations. And plenty of anons seem to care, otherwise there would not be any replies.
>>82930424It's a good introduction into evolutionary game theory. An extremly powerful and beautiful framework. Once you understand it you will eventually realize that leftism is nothing but a mental illness and inversion of the natural order. You may even come to hate them if you're smart enough...
>>82930353>Not true and even if it were today we are seeing societies that simply allow unregulated individualism die out while the most backward barbaric countries have steady populationsThat's taking us very far from the question of whether sex is biological or not. For what it's worth, I don't think birthrate issues can be solved by culturally promoting traditional roles, I think that's a naive approach in this day and age.>The way you worded it made it sound like you did, "Purely socio-economic and cultural factors"I didn't say purely. But I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff, I just believe that individuals are formed by their environment a great deal. As much as we like success stories, not that many people overcome bad starts in life.
>>82930483The thing is that humans are not connected to the natural order in the same way that animals are. We even shape our environment to the point where natural selection by numbers no longer functions as it does in the animal kingdom, or not nearly as well. It seems less descriptive and more prescriptive, or like an argument for analogy (the kind that theologians usually use).
>>82930410fair enough lad. i get that you're in the middle where it's both factors rather than either extreme (purely sexual dimorphism or purely a social construct). with you on that one.but for me it's that thing where you flip it around i do actually think those>femboys and masculine womenget short-changed by it, in a paradoxical way. through whatever combination of nature and nurture, there are e.g. butch lesbians. they're well aware of it. it takes some major shoehorning to tell them that they're ACTUALLY at the whims of some meta-ideology whether they like it or not. that would make sense if it was biology (cold hard science divorced from human culture) but that's not what the gender ideology crowd are saying.
>>82930508> humans are not connected to the natural order in the same way that animals areWe are though and that is the single most important fact there is. Man is a product and part of nature rather than above it. Our intelligence, consciousness or technological advances don't refute that.
>>82930510Things will get even weirder in the future, I think, but I'd need to nerd out a bit to explain it.There is this idea in Nietzsche that there is no fundamental Truth, only competing truths. It's an idea that's very hard to truly come to terms with, as most of us still cling on to some kind of truth-correspondence or even binary truth like in classical logic. For example, if I say that I was in Europe yesterday, that is either true or false, no in-between. And most people see science in the same way. But suppose humanity develops advanced genetic engineering, it will no longer be the question of what's biological reality, what's natural etc., there will only be the question of what should or shouldn't be created. Even if it's tied to truth, it will be done in different ways that will only enhance the plurality of competing Truths.
>>82930579Maybe, but doesn't nature become a meaningless term by that point? If it encompasses everything, it also encompasses humans going against it, so to speak.
>>82930367>Freedom means doing recreational drugs>Conservatives often just offer more freedom for the rich.Are you saying that you need to be rich in order to do drugs? Are you just a fucking imbecile? The entire problem with fentanyl is that it's so cheap. Here's the only serious response I'll give you. If you think government should not have the legal authority to tell you what to do with your own body, you are conservative in that regard. You're probably not morally aligned with evangelical Christians, traditionalists, or maybe even your own community, but you are ideologically conservative. Liberals, progressives, reformists etc. all want the exact opposite, they want more authority within government to tell you what to do and how to behave. Some of them are just morally aligned with your interest in doing fent and popping abortion pills. This leads to far more interesting conversations than just "rich = bad"
>>82930618No, the "drugs" thing was a hyperbolic example, a kind of "ad absurdum" version of absolute freedom that I don't believe is viable. I'm only saying that it is closer to a desirable version of freedom than what conservatives offer, which is a very particular use of the term. >If you think government should not have the legal authority to tell you what to do with your own body, you are conservative in that regard. You're probably not morally aligned with evangelical Christians, traditionalists, or maybe even your own community, but you are ideologically conservative.So what does that make everyone else in the list you mentioned? Because they seem to vote with the conservatives.
>>82930606>If it encompasses everything, it also encompasses humans going against it, so to speak.Those that go against natural law tend to die out over time. But i don't want to just spout one-liner platitudes though because when i learned about evopsych + gametheory about a decade ago it was like reaching enlightenment. I highly recommend you to watch this 30 minute video if you wanna see how this sort of political analysis looks like.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wpca1ZDIRQ
>>82930584that's fair enough, and even the black-and-white approach to science isn't as always as clear-cut as it seems: a concept a lot of the atheist/rationalist zealots seem to forget (plenty of 'impossible' things are now scientific fact).but i wouldn't fall into the trap of overthinking it like there's 'supposed' to be some mystical Platonic form of 'gender' and 'ahhh, there isn't one! therefore...'i had a biologist boyfriend (homosex) who was as accepting of transsexual/transgender people as someone can be. and even for biological sex in humans, it gets pretty fucking complicated (i'm not about to pretend i remotely understand how 'karyotypes' work).but when it comes to everyday reality, come the fuck on. i really think the people who genuinely get attached to it all are coming from the same place as, e.g., furries. i'm certain they're absolutely thrilled that intersex people exist because it validates them. rather than seeing intersex physiology as a rare condition that simply 'is'.
>>82930690>Those that go against natural law tend to die out over time.But then we'd have to socially establish what natural law is, so to speak. After all, we've greatly extended our lifespans and saved countless humans that would otherwise perish in their youth. Doesn't that mean going against natural law as well?I'll watch the video later by the way, thanks for the suggestion.
>>82930584>mfw when referencing Nietzshit schizobabble when you're actually trying to describe HumeNone of this is even relevant to the gender ideology bullshit. Is-ought is where the problem started, because some people felt left out or discriminated against for not conforming to the mold. Reducing gender to a binary male and female from birth is still correct, but as with literally anything else you need to allow room for error and outliers and being correct about what a woman is shouldn't give you the right to mistreat men in dresses. Current gender ideology is just about resetting all the previous truths into new molds where being a genetic freak is not only normal, but an indicator of better character traits. If it stopped there it would be fine, but they are trying too hard to make children conform to these new standards which ironically leaves most people out over time.
>>82930766>but when it comes to everyday reality, come the fuck on. i really think the people who genuinely get attached to it all are coming from the same place as, e.g., furries. i'm certain they're absolutely thrilled that intersex people exist because it validates them. rather than seeing intersex physiology as a rare condition that simply 'is'.Yeah, that's definitely an issue, but a significant part of it has to do with how hard it is to establish what's prescriptive and what's descriptive in human behavior. You can have someone who's trans and just wants to be the opposite binary gender, and you can have another trans person who gets obsessed by countless taxonomies and ontologies and classifications and spends all day trying to figure out things. Maybe they're both two effects of the same (or similar) biological phenomena, rather than one being more correct than the other. Or maybe one's more autistic than the other.
>>82930000holy shit a quad
>>82930800>If it stopped there it would be fine, but they are trying too hard to make children conform to these new standards which ironically leaves most people out over time.yeah this is my genuine problem with it.if you feel like gender was historically 'prescriptive' and you rebel against that, at some point you're just swapping prescriptive system #1 for prescriptive system #2. even if it's under the guise of being more open.
>>82930800I wasn't trying to describe Hume, I suspect that Nietzsche probably didn't believe the is-ought thing, but rather saw them as a continuum (a certain "is" gravitates towards a certain "ought").Besides, I didn't mean to imply that it's just about gender theory. That's one Truth among many others.
>>82929975>I consider myself left leaningYou fail the lefty vibe check. Sorry. You considering yourself left leaning is not enough to be allowed in their club. You actually have to hate whites or men or cis people too. >>82930000>Do you believe transwomen are real women?No, but I don't believe in women. Gender, like race, is something we made the fuck up.>Do you believe black people are IQ 100 and low crime like white folks?I don't believe in black people. They have a far too varrying genepool for me to really call them a single genetic thing. Judging people by their skin color is no less absurd than judging them by their blood type.
>>82930820>>82930837oh snap, prescriptivemind.>how hard it is to establish what's prescriptive and what's descriptive in human behavior. some mad scientist could always put 100 infant boys and 100 infant girls on a desert island, return 20 years later and see how they've turned out. i suspect the results WON'T shock us.(in real life there were those kibbutz communes in the early 20th century. interesting reading when it comes to how gender roles turned out.)
>>82930889>Gender, like race, is something we made the fuck up.>I don't believe in black people. They have a far too varrying genepool for me to really call them a single genetic thing. i agree about judging people (and our brains/personality/character is the thing that IS the same) but 'race is a social construct' has ALSO gone too far.if you use factor analysis to come up with discrete categories of homo sapiens i know it won't come out neatly to 'black Africans', 'white Europeans', 'oriental Asians' etc, it'll be some bizarre human subtype #39-A-C nonsense that we can't readily perceive.BUT both culturally and medically that shit's there, yo. i wouldn't want doctors to start saying 'um gosh well, it's an invention, so we can't really say for certain there are DIFFERENCES when it comes to sickle cell anaemia...'it's fairly skin deep, i'm at higher risk of some cancers. but i can ALSO tolerate a higher level of lactose. which is great because milk is delicious.
>>82930889>You actually have to hate whites or men or cis people too.I actually hate how much this meme has spread. Sure, some retarded college students said dumb shit like that, but for most boring everyday leftists, it's not a matter of hating any group. Unless you want to give it the spin that any attempt to help someone means bringing down (hating) someone else. But that's a secondary interpretation, not the way most leftists see it.
>>82930973maybe some day we'll re-arrive at the grown-up conclusion that left-wing and right-wing refer to political stances.if all the SJW and/or /pol/ yelling is meant to be about civil rights issues, they're certainly having a difficult timing putting what they want into words (what rights? what actual laws?)
>>82930767>But then we'd have to socially establish what natural law is, so to speakI don't think definitions are all that important at the end of the day. What matters is: how does a person, or idea, reproduce itself over time. If the person, or idea, engages in self-destructive behaviour then it will simply seize to exist. Note that everything leftists stand for is self-destructive.>After all, we've greatly extended our lifespans and saved countless humans that would otherwise perish in their youth. Doesn't that mean going against natural law as well?Medicin is somewhat contradictory, yes. Obviously as intelligent and sentient being we want to get rid of diseases and heal people, but doing this weakens selection pressures in the long term. I don't think there is a realistic solution to this problem.>I'll watch the video later by the way, thanks for the suggestion.Glad to hear it. It's really good.
>>82931064>Note that everything leftists stand for is self-destructive.That seems way too broad. What do you mean exactly?Let's say that leftists claim to want more accessible resources for the vast majority of people, that is to say better social/public programs (socialized medicine, socialized or affordable housing, better public transport, more investment in education and healthcare), more free time, higher wages, less foreign wars, more worker co-ops etc., that doesn't seem self-destructive to me. You can say that it's naive, idealistic, unrealistic etc., but I don't see it as self-destructive.I get that you're probably thinking of more extreme social issues, but that's not even entirely just a leftist thing, you can also see it as socially libertarian just as well. The point isn't the label, but rather that it's a fringe. Maybe most leftists want cannabis legal, but not many want fentanyl legal. Or most leftists might want some version of trans rights, in a live and let live kind of way, it doesn't mean that the majority go all in with the extreme version.
>>82931064seems a bit contradictory, this. overall you seem to be for some natural order/processes that were around for the majority of human history (correct me if i'm wrong there), but you're also happy to accept, e.g. medical advancements, that go against those processes?i'm not just saying 'herp derp appeal to nature', but i do think a lot of civilisation and progress is 'fighting' the status quo in a way. not that human beings are meant to BE a particular way, but the way we are tends to include this shit. fire is good, we now have easy ways to make fire. infant mortality is bad, we've done what we can to reduce it.
>>82931165>Or most leftists might want some version of trans rightsgenuine question because i HAVE asked people this and i've been met with some kind of "not my job to do your homework!" type response (even IRL):what the fuck are trans rights? here in the UK, they've had equal rights in law, including against discrimination since 2010. i had only ever heard the term "trans rights" SINCE then.usually when you're advocating for some rights it's because you don't have them. even if someone went round saying "DEFEND women's rights to the vote!" i'd have to assume they're a time traveller.
>>82931229It varies greatly, it's not one singular thing. Which is why there's a lot of virtue signaling on the left about it and plenty of leftists calling each other anti-trans over the smallest issue. I'd say that it's a bit like gay rights in that you can technically say that gays have the same rights as heterosexuals even in a society that doesn't legally allow gay marriage, in the sense that they too are allowed to marry the opposite gender. But that seems a bit like cheating to me.For me at least, it's important to fight cases of obvious discrimination. For example, if there is an issue with trans people in prison, and there have been some high profile cases of serious abuse, then it's important to address that even if it calls for atypical solutions, like separating them from the general population. Obviously, I wouldn't pretend that you can just put them in with their "desired" gender and say that there are no issues (like raping the other way around, pregnancies etc.), but that's why it's tricky to find a decent middle ground, as with bathrooms, sports and other issues that require clear social delineation.
>>82931362i appreciate the answer, anon. i do actually feel like the last hurdle of 'gay rights' was marriage for the gays who wanted it, so that's lovely, they've won!there's some bureaucracy and medical procedures that take forever in the UK (Gender Recognition Certificate and hormones/surgery) but...so does everything? that's nothing to do with 'rights' or even 'inequality'. even honing in your healthcare specifically rubs me the wrong way (what, over the cancer waiting lists? because those are notoriously bad.)>For example, if there is an issue with trans people in prisonthis one is grim but ultimately fascinating and something i hadn't really considered until i say a documentary by the 'TERF' side. they see it as 'men in women's prisons' who attack and rape.but then yeah, the opposite solution is trans women in men's prisons, pretty easy to see how that will go...sports, i think you could maybe do something like weight classes with boxing? bathrooms, maybe even unisex toilets. but the prison thing, there really isn't any third option ('trans men's prisons' and 'trans women's prisons', probably too expensive.)
Toilets should just be separated by stalls and urinals
>>82931442>sports, i think you could maybe do something like weight classes with boxing? It's a difficult issue to regulate because it's not always easy to measure, hence all the surrounding controversies. And some attempts to do it, like according to testosterone levels, actually got a biological woman banned from a women's race in one incident a few years ago. I believe the decision was reversed, but still. Plus there's the issue of populations, like when I first encountered the issue many years ago, before it was a fashionable talking point anywhere in politics, it was when a trans MtF Starcraft player was beating every biological woman in a woman's tournament. Sure, that's eSports, but this can be the case in pool, darts, chess etc. and it makes sense to have separate leagues because men's leagues have many more members and are more competitive. Many leftists want to leave it up to the various competitions to decide what's appropriate and what isn't, but they get called transphobes by other leftists as a result.>bathrooms, maybe even unisex toilets. It probably wouldn't be as weird or dangerous as conservatives make it out to be. I know this isn't proof of much, but when I was a student in Romania, we had unisex bathrooms in the dorms, although it was probably an exception rather than the norm. And Romania is very conservative and traditionalist. Their progressive party got 3% in the last elections, or something like that. And their dominant leftist party is very socially conservative. >but the prison thing, there really isn't any third option ('trans men's prisons' and 'trans women's prisons', probably too expensive.)You could make separate areas from them in existing prisons, it's not like there are a ton of trans around even in the most progressive countries. Depending on the country, zones like that already exist to some extent for inmates that are at risk of being killed.
>>82929975Which left wing city do you live in?
>>82931901I don't live in the US. And many of their leftists barely qualify as such, for what it's worth.
>>82931165sorry for the late reply>That seems way too broad. What do you mean exactly?I mean it in a very straightforward and sincere way: leftism is suicidal. Every single thing they stand for subverts civilizational achievements or the health of individuals.>Let's say that leftists claim to want [good things] that doesn't seem self-destructive to me.That's just rhetoric. Revealed leftist preferences are: destroying the family unit (healthiest way to raise children), dismantle nuclear energy (best source of energy, effective outcome is deindustrialization or "degrowth" as they like to call it), perverting sexual norms (promotimg homosexuality, transexuality, pedophilia, other unhealthy paraphilias all of who are fundamentally unable to raise healthy children), valuing criminals over citizens (you can see this in judges giving rapists slaps on the wrists while throwing the books at honest everyday people. The judges who do that are fucking ALWAYS shitlibs), erode white populations with infinity brown immigration (doesn't really need to be explained), normalizing uglyness (see modern architecture, post-modern corpo style, destroying beautiful old painting to "just stop oil" or some other post hox shit, graffiti, etc.)That's just me going off memory. Others could go on for hours. Here is the important bit: try to predict wether an arbitary policy X is harmful to society and then see whether leftists have constructed a string of words to claim X is "actually good" or something like that. I promise you 100% of the time they will side with X if it's harmful to society. Maaaaaybe you can find like 1 case in a 100 where this isn't true.
>>82931180>but you're also happy to accept, e.g. medical advancements, that go against those processes?I think that for as long as society is concious of long term survivability we can get away with violating nature here or there. For example poor people having a higher birthrate than rich people can be accaptable as long as the poor people can provide for themselves rather than having to depend on outside ressources.
>>82930271>no such thingNot only is it a thing, but in fact, MOST women have Y chromosomes in some cells:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32065627/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16084184/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458919/
>>82932087>>82931165Another perfect example to make my point is pic related. Some black guy choked by some white guy on a train. Now the million dollar question: which side is more harmful to society? The black guy, obviously, who turned out to be a ex-con criminal harrassing bystanders. The left's instinctual gut response was (and is) to side with the black guy. Why? Because it's more harmful to society. Why tear down nuclear reactors? Because degrowth is gonna send us back to the stone ages i.e more harmful to society. What did leftist think about when Bukele mass-jailed gang members and corrupt judges? Didn't like it, cried about "human rights" or some shit...why? Because letting criminal gang members run rampant is more harmful to society. There are infinitetly more examples of this. "What's more harmful to society?" is the skeleton key to actual leftist policies. They will always come up with a string of words that sound nice to justify their suicidality post hoc.
>>82932087See, my issue with this is that it attributes too much to "the Left". I don't have as much patience these days to listen to debates and stuff like that, but there's much more diversity (no pun intended) of opinion on the Left than that. And surprising amounts of what you described, albeit in a different form, on the right.>dismantle nuclear energyIt's not a simple issue for the left, many are for it, especially given the looming threat of climate change.>perverting sexual norms (promotimg homosexuality, transexuality, pedophilia, other unhealthy paraphilias all of who are fundamentally unable to raise healthy children),They'd argue that it's recognizing rather than promoting. I wouldn't say that for the most part couples like that (other than the pedos) can't raise healthy children, even if you account for increased abuse rates. And there seems to be this trend on the right with seeing pedophilia as a return to tradition (age of consent was very low or nonexistent for most of history). >valuing criminals over citizens (you can see this in judges giving rapists slaps on the wrists while throwing the books at honest everyday people. The judges who do that are fucking ALWAYS shitlibs),I guess. I've always heard leftists talk about bringing down recidivism rates, which is pretty bipartisan since prisons are basically crime universities. I don't know how many actually want to be soft on crime.>erode white populations with infinity brown immigration (doesn't really need to be explained),Fair, although that's not exclusively a leftist thing, there are old videos of Bernie Sanders talking against immigration in order to better preserve social programs. And there are plenty of right wing figures that want more brown immigrants, whether it's cheap low value labor or the H1B visas thing.(to be continued...)
>>82932313(continued)>normalizing uglyness (see modern architecture, post-modern corpo style, destroying beautiful old painting to "just stop oil" or some other post hox shit, graffiti, etc.)That's attributing a lot to the Left that only describes a small amount of people.>destroying the family unit (healthiest way to raise children)I left this one for last because it's the weirdest one to me. At least in theory, leftists want more free time off and support for parents. And a lot of social programs that are meant to increase the birthrate have a kind of socialist bend to them, even if they're sometimes implemented by right-wingers like Orban.Anyway, sorry for the wall of text and if some of it sounds pedantic.
>>82932248>Another perfect example to make my point is pic related. Some black guy choked by some white guy on a train. Now the million dollar question: which side is more harmful to society? The black guy, obviously, who turned out to be a ex-con criminal harrassing bystanders. The left's instinctual gut response was (and is) to side with the black guy. Why? Because it's more harmful to society. Well, why was he harassing the bystanders? Was it a mental health issue? Because the supposed leftist question would be what systematic failure led to it, not who's more to blame.>Why tear down nuclear reactors? Because degrowth is gonna send us back to the stone ages i.e more harmful to society. Presumably they believe that that would help the environment, which would increase sustainability, thus making humanity last longer if anything. But like I said, the Left isn't a monolith on this issue, they're more divided than ever.>What did leftist think about when Bukele mass-jailed gang members and corrupt judges? Didn't like it, cried about "human rights" or some shit...why? Because letting criminal gang members run rampant is more harmful to society. Or because they genuinely care about human rights and due process? Which would preserve life and ensure a functional criminal justice system rather than an arbitrary one.>There are infinitetly more examples of this. "What's more harmful to society?" is the skeleton key to actual leftist policies. They will always come up with a string of words that sound nice to justify their suicidality post hoc.Yeah, but what I'm trying to say is that you can always do the same thing in the other direction. That is to say, you can claim to know what their ulterior motives (conscious or unconscious) are. How would you decide between your interpretation of it and the justifications given? Again, you could just say that the Left is naive, it doesn't have to be suicidal.
>>82932313>See, my issue with this is that it attributes too much to "the Left".I tried to convey the lefts essence. Pic related is an accurate illustration too, altough it probably looks too biased and hamfisted if you don't already agree with it.>It's not a simple issue for the left, many are for it, especially given the looming threat of climate change.The ideological direction of a thing is often enough to place it on a political spectrum. For example: waving the british flag in britian? Directionally right-wing, nationalistic, oppossed to british status quo, etc. Waving the palestinian flag in palestine? Directionally left-wing. Anti-colonialism, "humanitarian", ethnic-solidarity, etc. Something that calls itself "degrowth" can only exist within the left. Your first instinct wouldn't be to call it "nationalist" or "capitalist" for that matter, because "degrowth" is directionally entropic/anti-nature/suicidal i.e leftist. I'm sure some leftist advocate for nuclear, but they are doing so *in oppossition* to their dogma.> I wouldn't say that for the most part couples like that (other than the pedos) can't raise healthy children, even if you account for increased abuse rates."Increased abuse rates" is the key part here. It is a undisputable and intuitive fact that as the genetic difference between a children and it's caretaker increases the risk of abuse also increases. Makes sense, after all distinctly related organism don't share as much common interests. Now think about this: Marx argued in 1850 that in the future capitalism would give rise to a fundamentally different economic structure which would radically transform society. Ok, fair enough, but then he went farther than that and said the family unit would give way to something more communal. How does he know that? He can't, it's just conjecture. Ok, why does he *conject* *in the direction* that increases child abuse? Why do modern leftists align themselves with that same sentiment today?1/2
>>82932390You're proving his point, lots of high minded excuses for making the world much worse.Its an exercise in trying to sound convincing while destroying civilization
>>82932728It's called the vision of the anointed. Thomas Sowell talks about it
>>829323132/2>I don't know how many actually want to be soft on crime.Just look at the state of the entire western hermisphere today. There is your answer. Or do leftists like the improvements Bukele made? Nope!>And there are plenty of right wing figures that want more brown immigrantsThat's unfortunatetly true. Their motivations are different though. Tl;dr i think right-wingers can be defined as people instinctually avoidant of politics. The kind of people who toiled the fields 24/7 in pre-industrial times. Truly nice people, but utterly politically retarded.>At least in theory, leftists want more free time off and support for parents.They are just saying that and i can prove it. Researchers have done behavioural analyses of conservatives vs liberals dozens of times. The consistent result is that liberals (directionally leftist) are more narcisistic, prone to lying and mentally ill. Some people will just say "i'm a good person that want's good things" to statusmaxx no matter the cost. Ever heard of a story about how airport officials clocked a terrorist, but didn't wanna be called racist and then those people turned out to be terrorists and did 9/11? Real story. Virtue signaling is one hell of a drug for a certain type of person.>Was it a mental health issue? Because the supposed leftist question would be what systematic failure led to it, not who's more to blame.Is that charitable grace of "system failures" ever given to, say, racists or -phobes? Like, ever? "Oh he said something -phobic, but let's empathize with the systemic failures that led to this and give him a second chance"....lmfao>they genuinely care about human rights and due process?Same flaw as your previous point. Is that charitable grace ever given to heretics? Where are the human right activists opposing the mass rape of white british children or judicial abuse by corrupt liberals? Nowhere. Because they don't fucking care.
>>82932728>>82932745Well, a lot of it has to do with how it's framed. If you just see everything I've said as an excuse covering an ulterior motive, then you won't even try to be nuanced on any of the issues. Why ever consider some kind of alternate viewpoint when you already have a way of dismissing it built into your ideology? And that's true for all ideology. You can say that everything you don't like is bourgeois propaganda (if you're a Marxist) or it's extremist collectivist propaganda (if you're a Liberal of some kind, including Conservative or Libertarian). It doesn't leave much room for any kind of alterity, since everyone receives their branding (whatever form of decadence they're found guilty of), there's no need to speak and debate about it. Kind of ironic since we're discussing it, but you get the idea.
>>829323903/2>Yeah, but what I'm trying to say is that you can always do the same thing in the other direction.You can't. You may go ahead and try, but it won't work. The framework of "if it's more harmful to society, support it" can not be applied to the right. You can apply it to geriatric conservatives, but genuine nationalists right-wingers? Nope.>How would you decide between your interpretation of it and the justifications given?Good question and the actual answer to it is this: i can predict a leftists position on a given topic X vs Y simply by estimating which position is more harmful to society, and then choose that. This is not a meme answer. It's irrefutable proof that their motivation is malicious. You can wrap any position with flowery words into something noble, but if their underlying motivation was anything but malicious then this method would not work. They would pick a healthy position by accident at least some of the time, right? But they never do. Because the lefts essence is entropy, suicide, etc.>>82932825I understand that what i'm saying sounds dismissive and biased. Even i myself find it hard to believe often times that leftists really are such evil scumbags. But time and time again for years i have noticed this pattern. In history, with the people i interact with, with the arguments themselves. "Is it harmful to society, if yes leftists support it" is an iron fucking law.
>>82930057You're mentally retarded there is no saving you
>>82932825Ive been living in a neolib system my whole life and it unfailingly gets worse specifically due to leftist evil.Its a conversation I've already had about things I don't need to guess on. There's nothing to say. Leftism is evil and any ideology that doesn't acknowledge this is itself evil.
>>82932970I think a classic example is Cuba.In Cuba the workers seized the means of production, they redistributed all the mansions. The factory owners ended up fleeing with nothing but the clothes on their back to Miami and Florida.Now who is richer, the Cubans living in Cuba who ate the rich and took all their stuff, or the Cubans in Miami who had all their wealth seized and had to start over with nothing?
>>82932582Thanks for the chart. It does clear some things up, even if I have my issues with it.>"degrowth" is directionally entropic/anti-nature/suicidalSee, that seems forced to me because degrowth, whether you find it viable or not, presents itself as the opposite of all those things you mentioned. If anything, it seems naively life affirming. >Why do modern leftists align themselves with that same sentiment today?I don't know that they do, it seems a bit forced to me as well. Maybe there are some hippie communes out there that fit the mold, but most leftists don't want to raise their kids in a group like it's Plato's Republic. I don't think Marx really had a solution either, at best you could say that he was right about families being used as economic and political forces (nobles marrying nobles, the rich marrying the rich to gain more wealth and power).>>82932793>Or do leftists like the improvements Bukele made?Well, if his solutions meant a loss of due process and the potential imprisonment of many innocents, I'd be a bit skeptical as well.>Some people will just say "i'm a good person that want's good things" to statusmaxx no matter the cost.Maybe, but if their politicians actually implement such policies, then it's less of an issue.>Is that charitable grace of "system failures" ever given to, say, racists or -phobes? Like, ever? "Oh he said something -phobic, but let's empathize with the systemic failures that led to this and give him a second chance"....lmfaoIn theory yes, which is why Leftists tend to say that education is the solution to everything. Besides, finding systemic issues doesn't mean absolving someone of a crime, it means trying to prevent future crime, especially the all too common schizophrenic episodes that many dismiss through racism. And yes, you can say that it's a failure of the justice system as well, absolutely.>human right activists opposing the mass rapeWell, maybe there should be. They were corrupt liberals.
>>82932970Neoliberalism is at best socially leftist, though. Besides, there are other leftist approaches that don't have to become Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
>>82932922>genuine nationalists right-wingers? Nope.Well, who would you count on that list? Because plenty of countries run like that had tons of issues, to put it mildly.
>>82930956>our brains/personality/character is the thing that IS the same)No they aren't. Genetics play a role.>you use factor analysis to come up with discrete categories of homo sapiens i know it won't come out neatly to 'black Africans', 'white Europeans', 'oriental Asians' etc, it'll be some bizarre human subtype #39-A-C nonsense that we can't readily perceive. >Yes, and it matters more than race for determining actual physical differences rather than what people are groomed into behaving like.> i wouldn't want doctors to start saying 'um gosh well, it's an invention, so we can't really say for certain there are DIFFERENCES when it comes to sickle cell anaemia...' There aren't though. It depends from where the given "black" person comes from. People who have ansestors who had to deal with more mosquitoes have to deal with that trait. That just happens to be warm places with more sun and as such more mellinin in the skin.Of course, just like blood type, sometimes it matters, but if you really want to get into proper genetic differences, you have to let go of race as a concept beyond just skin color. Black people as a consistent genetic whole is just silly. There is far too much varrience in "black" genes. >>82930973>actually hate how much this meme has spread. Sure, some retarded college students said dumb shit like thatNo true scotsman, huh. We going to the Charlie Kirk died party with your friends who'd disown you if you don't hate the guy, now?You are a centrist. Pic rel is leftism. It's a radicalized hate movement and cult comprised of mostly women.
>>82933176>No true scotsman, huh. We going to the Charlie Kirk died party with your friends who'd disown you if you don't hate the guy, now?I'm only saying that getting people to hate each other is not a goal worth aspiring to if you're a leftist (and not just that).But I'm sure this will be seen in bad faith as well. After all, it's the leftists who are evil and hate everyone, when all this thread seemed to show is that it's the other way around. At least that's the way it felt, I'm not saying there isn't plenty of evil and hatred on the left, just that it's counterproductive and antithetical to what the left should be.In any case, thank you everyone for your patience, I know how frustrating having conversations like this is. Maybe I've got a masochistic streak because I like to engage in them every once in a while. I promise I'll take what was said seriously. They weren't wasted words.
>>82929975The problem is that the left (not idpol neoliberals, actual socialists and communists) uses solid theory to reach retarded conclusions, while the right uses retarded theory to reach solid conclusions. The solution is a Right-Wing Marxism that embraces Marx's description of capital, removes the LTV autism, and actively promotes the autonomization of capital via neoreactionary praxis.
>>82933008>Thanks for the chart. It does clear some things up, even if I have my issues with it.Glad it helped you.>degrowth, whether you find it viable or not, presents itself as the opposite of all those things you mentioned. If anything, it seems naively life affirming.It's presentation is a disguise. Are degrowth people as passionate about dismantling non-european nations with their dogma? Like, has any climate change specialist ever advocated for nuking/dismantling China since gutting our own industry base is pointless otherwise? The point i'm trying to drive home here is that leftism, or really any ideology, manifests itself as a *cluster* of positions. "Degrowth" is just a node in the *cluster*, or web of assossiations, of leftism. The defining trait of that *cluster* is entropy. So, if the entropic cluster tells me that gutting my industry to the stoneages is a good, life affirming thing i call bullshit.>Well, if his solutions meant a loss of due process and the potential imprisonment of many innocents, I'd be a bit skeptical as well.Personally i just dont care about that stuff anymore. The entire western world has been in a steady and consistent decline for my life. Procedures, ideologies, morality, none of that shit matters. What matters is having a nice life under a goverment that acts in your interests, who cares how exactly they do it or how many people have to be stepped over? The only thing that's actually evil in this world is neglecting the people you are responsible for.
>>82930889This, even among leftists that don't care about idpol, you have to tow their party line 100% or else you're a "revisionist" or "state capitalist". Their revolutionary sectarianism is only matched by the early Shias.
>>82931901How did cities like New Orleans and Memphis switch seamlessly between the old segregationist Democrats and the new progressive Democrats without a single Republican in between? Wasn't there an awkward moment in the 60s/70s when they realized their party abandoned everything it used to uphold?
>>82933388Maybe the Southern Strategy and Republicans and Democrats flipping their positions in the 60s/70s was bullshit?
>>82933111>Well, who would you count on that list?NS Germany is my favorite, but i don't wanna bog this thread down over it's history.>Because plenty of countries run like that had tons of issues, to put it mildly.Quite frankly and without hyperbolye i think we live in the worst fucking timeframe of human history. Maybe you have many good examples of nationalists doing terrible mistakes, maybe those are accurate and i'm in denial about it, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that what we live under right now isn't fucking hell on earth? I don't know what life bracket you're in, but from my pov romance is dead. Divorce common. All institutions have been corrupted and turned against people like me. Everything gets more expensive. Even trivial things like games or other escapism continues to become more shit year after year. Otherwise nice people have been brainwashed by the media and whatnot to follow one psychotic, self-harming ritual after the next. Got kicked out of college twice for not poisoning myself with the covid shot then got told by my former friends that i'm evil for doing so while seing them getting health complications right before my eyes. Shit is brutal man... it couldn't possibly get worse than it already does anyway.
>>82933469It could though anon, leftist are like a cpu enemy in a video game, they never, ever stop. They're planning their next outrage right now.
>>82933388jewish refugees from soviet union flooded the U.S. and some became professors. they targeted cities and hired each other at universities and hijacked the youth. one city has a notably larger university scene thus more marxist
>>82933469It is bad, but things won't go on like this forever, even if it feels like they will. Try to weather the storm the best you can. Some things at least will get better, there's a sort of pendulum to these things.I know this isn't much, but since you're into video games, maybe look into indie stuff over AAA slop. There are a ton of YouTube channels that showcase decent indies every day. Channels like Splattercat, Wanderbots, Nookrium, Indie Buffet, QuanticFlux, The Singleplayer Squad, Worth A Buy, Mortismal Gaming etc.
>>82933703Thanks for the recommendations. I'll share one too. Tactical Breach Wizards. Charming little game with an amazing concept. Only buy it on sale though.
>>82933305>I'm only saying that getting people to hate each other is not a goal worth aspiring to if you're a leftistWell, if you call yourself a leftist and know what the word means, that's not a goal you're aspiring for.>After all, it's the leftists who are evil and hate everyone,Nowadays at least. Hating people is the left's characteristic trait. It wasn't like this 30 years ago.>when all this thread seemed to show is that it's the other way aroundAre you insinuating that the people here are mean because they're not left-wing?>At least that's the way it felt, I'm not saying there isn't plenty of evil and hatred on the left, just that it's counterproductive and antithetical to what the left should be. >You got the wrong idea. The left is the way it is by design. Take feminism. First it was pretty good, then it became a religion about hating men after feminism got what it set out for and more. The left wing always ends up picking up whatever minorities they can in order to stand against the rich until they themselves become the rich, and then their goals change. Why else do you think all the Trumpcucks want socialist policies feel like they need to be on the right?>In any case, thank you everyone for your patience, I know how frustrating having conversations like this is. Maybe I've got a masochistic streak because I like to engage in them every once in a while. I promise I'll take what was said seriously. They weren't wasted words.Kek. Is this where you go for to talk with who you percieve to be the monolithic representative of the right? Newsflash bucko, nobody is on 4chan's side. Nobody is on young and estranged men's side. Not the right. Not the left.
>>82934660>Are you insinuating that the people here are mean because they're not left-wing?No, it was a remark about how things were often framed in this thread. I don't blame people for being sincere about it, though.>Kek. Is this where you go for to talk with who you percieve to be the monolithic representative of the right?No, if anything, I think there's an interesting bit of variety on the right and some of it came through in this thread. In any case, I don't use any other social media, but I also tend to avoid /pol/ posting for the most part. I don't know what came over me today.Anyway, I'm gonna call it a night. Thank you everyone for replying. I'll read whatever else is posted in the morning.
>>82929989*kicks you onto a roof*
>>82929975Genuinely, Why do you suck arab dick so hard? Do you understand they seriously want to kill you?
