Or those things aren't as popular as you think they are.
I'm just thinking of this in the long term. Back a few generations black folks were thought of as the missing link of evolution between apes and humans. This is how we move on to the next level past discrimination.
It doesn't matter that there's more allies than homophobes, what matters is that there's way more indifferent people, so we shouldn't risk hampering freedom of expression and the arts for anyone else. There's no need to pander to either group. Just sell things for the normies.
The fact that the right uses caring for free speech as a facade doesn't mean that the culturally far left people also aren't against it. I'd much rather save it by empowering the right, because I think their other arguments are easy to beat, whereas the left's arguments pertaining to economics are correct, so if you marry those with the anti-free-speech ideology, that becomes much harder to combat and I honestly don't know where I fall if I have to choose between the two.
So... 1. I thought you weren't into the political parry switch thing over the last century? Have you suddenly changed your mind? because he Dems certainly weren't on the Left a long time ago.
The Democratic Party are a hilariously big tent party. The US has a two party system, so the Democrats have to include everyone to the left of the Republicans. The Republicans are very, very right wing, so the Democrats includes people of wildly differing ideologies and worldviews, with liberal conservatives like Joe Biden at one end and social democrats like Bernie Sanders and the rest of the new progressive movement at the other. The breadth of ideals covered by the Democrats means that there are members who are both considerably to the left and considerably to the right of what is considered the political centre in Britain.
1. They were the left always. They were the left when it was Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists. They were the left when it was Democrats vs Whigs. They are still the left now. They have moved around between conservative and progressive positions as the times dictate. When the people are conservative, so are the Democrats, and vice versa. But conservative and progressive isn't left and right, those coinciding for the last like 70 years doesn't make synonyms. I say the parties didn't switch not because the Democrats didn't change. They obviously changed greatly for the better, but that is a reflection of the country as a whole changing for the better, not all the bad people switching party loyalty.
Polls consistently show that those things are popular.
What, in the US?
Uh huh. Sure.
*spit take while laughing*
I don't disagree with what you're saying except that Republicans are very, very right wing. They're both big tents. The idea that the Republicans are right of specific right parties in other countries is silly.
I posted a functional definition, not 'according to this person', because yours assumes a strong division line but lacks any functional dinstinctions yet appeals to some linguistic determinism that it does not have. It's a definition that distinguishes through privation and subsetting, since it identifies what a broad understanding of left-wing is, whilst you're the one trying to reframe it as a Hobbes/Rousseau split that doesn't exist and doesn't even have any relation to the social contract theory you suggest. You are literally the caricature you make the left out to be since you're playing fast and loose with these terms. We went from:
To
Pray tell how you can have a view of government as the entity to carry out the tasks ensuring the people's well-being whilst simultaneously claiming that it's not an idealisation of government, whilst at its root, claiming to have this represent what 'left' and 'right-wing' mean in concrete terms like the lines in the sand you were drawing just before.
Meaningless terms when both put names on ballots for votes, which are by definition (a word that has been thoroughly abused by this point) the political manifestation of representation and leadership for brokerage of interests. Both vote, both elect leaders that represent their views, both expect them to enact their will as an authority. This idea that libertarians are in some way opposed to the state whilst voting themselves in to 'reduce the state' is as laughable as suggesting an Anarchist Party running for congress.
That's not "worded neutrally." Polls say what the pollmakers want them to for the most part, and your point on "medicare for all" is the perfect example of that. Questions can lead people to the desired answer.
You do understand that medicare for all would be very likely the most expansive and comprehensive government healthcare system ever enacted on the planet? And that would be just expanding the healthcare we already provide to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and then some. Which is like half of all the healthcare costs in the country. And isn't strongly contested by many in either party.
If you're a company that wants to make the maximum amount of money, that's all that matters.
The "normies" will buy anything as long as it's decent though. Look at how popular Marvel movies still are, even after all the "boo hoo, they're all SJW panderers now" whining.
Imma just quote a friend on this one:
While you have a point on the extremes...
Those are perfectly compatible statements. People can be bad people. People can suck at their jobs. You miss every single time the real and ideal don't coincide.
Stalin said as much of the RCCP and the need for 'strong leadership' to prevent incompetent opportunists and bourgeois elements from destabilising the party, especially the anarchists. Guess you were an RCP man this whole time, huh.
By neutral, I mean something like:
Multiple studies, including ones done by libertarian organizations that don't really like government intervention, show that it actually SAVES money.
What, medicare for all?
I dunno, I've seen a hell of a lot of "how are you gonna pay for it, that's socialism!"...
Call me a radical, but I think healthcare is a human right.
Dude, the leading cause of bankruptcy in your country is medical debt. The current system doesn't protect the poor sick or elderly at all (well, ok, the elderly CAN buy into medicaid, which, BTW, the GOP has railed against in the past.)
I'm not saying the US healthcare system isn't a disaster. I've said on many occasions that I decidedly don't support socialized medicine but it'd be better than the current situation. Because right now we have the downsides of the market with the downsides of the government thrown of top, it's basically as bad as it could be, and then the ACA came in and mandated we continue that system by law. It really is crap.
No, I meant Medicare and Medicaid. It's hard to say we deride all government healthcare as socialism when we pay for so many people already.
You have a radical idea of what constitutes a right, that is true.
I don't think you get what bankruptcy is. It's not debtor's prison. It's the proceeding by which people who cannot pay their debts receive reprieve from them. Bankruptcy IS "I needed this but can't possibly afford it" process. It exists so that you don't die from your debts.
It's a single digit percent, and also a poor measure of health care access. You can't rail against insurance middlemen and then use their prevalence as the metric for whether people receive care or not.
You very much can, if you're describing a system that has made personal health insurance impossible to live without.
If I threaten someone in a fit of rage, I may be "equally expressing myself" but it's still illegal and refusing to apologize is just going to make me an asshole. No dude, you need to do way better in terms of evidence to convince me that multibillion dollar companies were coerced into doing anything.
Your grievance is with your own hypothetical scenario. I'm not going to discuss imaginary SJWs with you, only policy.
So much for "facts over feelings." You just posited an example of a person not getting canceled, changed what their material was about to create a strawman for straw-SJWs to attack and called it coercion. You need to actually demonstrate that coercion has taken place, not your paranoid fee-fees that it's taking place.
So you're saying that conservatives are inherently anti-trans? That I could actually agree on.
Again, you're getting aggrieved at your own hypotheticals and in the process you're not actually making an argument, you're just talking to yourself.
At least you recognize the current system is busted, although I fail to see what makes more sense than a soclialized system that's being run with the intention of "give everyone coverage, don't leave it up to private business to profit off the suffering of people"...But I'd be inclined to be curious to hear about such a solution.
You...Know both parties have been trying to cut it and privatize it for a while, right?
If "the base necessities of life should be easy to access or free, so that you don't die because you dont' have a job that pays well enough" is radical, then sure.
They still repossess anything valuable you have and tank your credit score to the point where you can't take out another loan again, though.
Under the current system, you can only get healthcare via 2 avenues:
I believe the number is like 30 to 40 thousand people literally die every year because they can't get the healthcare that they need?
It's not because they can't get the healthcare they need. The number is generated by comparing deaths among uninsured vs deaths among insured, but it's not because uninsured people are being turned away and dying. The argument is always that the uninsured tend not to seek care as consistently as the insured, usually stated as though it's people avoiding care due to expense, and not seeking care early and often leads to worse results. Which makes sense.
It's not a right, it's a service, but regardless, there are probably lots of people in those countries who also die by neglecting their own health, we just don't have so clean a proxy variable for it.
The point is that it won't be decent eventually due to them canceling decent things for being politically incorrect and promoting bad things that are ticking all the boxes. The american comicbook industry is suffering from this right now for example. And it's not as if there's a general lack of interest in them either since manga is doing just fine, both here and in Japan (it's actually up compared to last year in the US too).
I agree with this definition but I also see it as an abuse of the boycott. The intended use is something like for example the thing that happened when Capcom cancelled Megaman Legends 3. It's something that happens when an artistic issue is had and you want it to be corrected for the betterment of the medium as a whole. What we have is the tyranny of the minority in a commercial sense here. Just because the people who wanna cancel this thing complain it doesn't mean they represent the majority of the fanbase of a thing so they shouldn't get to speak for them or control what they get to experience.
Well of course, I'm left wing too. So I know it's not all the left. The way I see it, it's not what sort of ideas you hold in your head that defines if you're left or right but rather out of those ideas which are the ones that you deem as most significant. I think every normal person has some left and some right wing ideas but which they choose to put emphasis on defines where they allign. So yeah, as I believe I've shown enough here, I deem the economic policy to be most important so I am far left overall, but I do also have centrist cultural stances, I just value those very lowly overall so while they're there they do nothing to actually move me to consider myself right wing. Some people will just see those and just deem me as impure because of them but that's just ignorance and also just plain incorrect based on the facts of the matter (voted for Bernie and even held my nose and voted for Hilldog etc.)
