By LEFT do you infer compassion, empathy, and class solidarity? In contrast, by RIGHT do you infer me-first, only my rights matter and only those in my clan deserve to be cared about?
Then, yes.
Well we know where you stand without doubt
Spoken like a true liberal.
I don’t adopt views wholesale - I evaluate each issue on an individual basis, so my views tend to be a mixed bag. From a political standpoint, most people would probably see me as an unreliable ally as my views can be hard to predict. While I agree with many, if not most, “left-wing” ideas, there are still plenty of others that would get me labeled as a Nazi MAGA Republican.
That said, on Lemmy I’m definitely in the minority when it comes to holding certain beliefs that many would label “right-wing,” even though on other issues I can out–left-wing even most leftists.
I’ve been on Lemmy for about two months and there is a good amount of left-leaning folks here. I definitely consider myself in the left-wing category. I hover somewhere between a bit liberal, a bit socialist, and a bit of a commie, but absolutely no authoritarianism.
Funny you had to put a disclaimer for authoritarianism. The world’s history and propaganda have made it synonymous with the far left, where that ideology was never about absolute power, but quite the opposite.
Some of us are simply europeans.
A right wing European is still a little bit too liberal for MAGA
I suppose most people here are not alt-right at least.
Could you please define exactly what you mean by “left-wing”?
yes
This is a fediverse is full of new people, adventurers, change makers. The majority of people who would be interested in this platform will have a more progressive bent. So the majority of people here will be more accepting of liberal policies.
Quibble: Many here are explicitly leftist, in the a leftist-not-liberal sense, and will even use “liberal” derogatorily. So, progressive, yes, but liberal, not necessarily.
From my perspective I think that that is very silly. I don’t care for purity tests, but what would I know? I’m just a dirty libertarian.
Libertarian as the USA mean or the rest of the world mean?
As in the traditional meaning of the word
Thanks. I look forward to learning about libertarianism with and from you. Not saying I’ll agree, but that I look forward to learning more.
Personally myself, I’m a bit of a geoist and a bit of a minarchist. I would advise that if you are interested you should start reading, John Lock and David Henry Thoreaus essays on governent and from there branch out.
Liberal policies are an actual thing, a thing that leftists frequently disagree with.
Libertarians are often placed on the right part of the left-right divide. The fact you’ve chosen the label libertarian instead of conservative is animated by the exact same “purity test” that you find so silly.
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler is an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler was an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
I’m libertarian because I believe in freedom of choice. I’m not a conservative because the only things I care about conserving are the oceans and the forests.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
You can’t be both a libertarian and pretend to care about parks and forests. Pick one.
It wouldn’t kill you to read
But based on your username, that may not be in your skill set
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
That’s not true. I’m pretty sure most people don’t 100% agree with The strictest definition of their chosen label.
You’re about one “and I think healthcare is a human right” from being a progressive/dem soc.
I like the Democratic socialists. I don’t like it when they seize power that will be upsurped by the next administration in powerand used to oppress people.
you forgot to switch alts to argue with yourself
You seem very confused I edited a comment and it posted to itself. It’s the same fucking comment should I have deleted the tree and collapsed the thread?
I would like to throw out there that the ACLU is a libertarian organization that would likely line up with the majority of the beliefs of Lemmy users. With that said I understand most people aren’t using libertarian in its ‘correct’ meaning as the ACLU does.
Yea I tend to think than when someone identifies as a Libertarian they almost certainly don’t mean a civil libertarian, which is how the aclu actually identifies themselves.
We have grown from a roomful of civil libertarians to more than 4 million members, activists, and supporters across the country. The ACLU is now a nationwide organization with a 50-state network of staffed affiliate offices filing cases in both state and federal courts. We appear before the Supreme Court more than any other organization except the Department of Justice.
This is literally the only time the word libertarian appears in their own history https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history
I only know because I interned there and it’s something they talked about. Maybe it was always preceded with ‘civil’ I just don’t remember that as well. The big issue amongst the workers when I was there was that in principle they supported Citizens United, and most of the employees did not support it in practice.
Just adding my experience to the topic, not sure why I got down voted for it. I’m not trying to push anyone to be libertarian just pointing out other ways the definition can be used.
It isn’t a purity test, it’s a necessary accommodation of the fact that people in the US (and I say this as an American) think that the left ends at progressive liberalism, while everyone else in the world sees progressive liberalism as center-left at best because they acknowledge that ‘the left’ extends quite far past the bounds of Liberalism (the philosophy, not the political leaning), because Liberalism is about individualism and property rights but most people to the left of that are collectivist in some way shape or form.
to make matters more fun, many ‘explicitly leftist’ lemmings are tankies (blind supporters of russia, china, north korea, etc), who are explicitly not leftist but authoritarians masquerading in the skinsuit of the people’s revolution.
Good point, many think left = liberal = US democrats who are centrists at best from the international perspective. So no, most people on here probably aren’t actual leftists, but I’m guessing when they say they ‘lean left’ they mean US-liberal-not-conservative, not socialist or whatever.
it’s full of new people,
Don’t be ridiculous. I’m not a new people. I’ve been a people for almost my whole life. I bet most of us have.
Not me, I’ve only been a person for the past couple years. Prior to that I was a caffeine-powered AI.
Just say yes
If you consider Democrats left wing then yes, by far the most here are left wing, since by most European standards Democrats are clearly right wing.
Republicans are extreme right by most standards. Republican (MAGA) is basically an American version of AfD!
So by that standard I guess about 80% here are left wing, maybe even more?Yeah right wing opinions will just get you banned on most instances
Apart from the Tankie Triad, i’d doubt right wing opinions would get you banned (i’m not against believe it if i saw some examples though).
Hate speech and promotion of oppressions that right wingers tend to consider as simple ‘opinions’ might though.
Maybe in certain communities? Some power tripping mods do exist. Likely they could be reported to the instance admins and possibly removed for such a scenario. It’s happened before in some extremely high profile cases.
Downvoting the admin of Midwest.social would get you banned though.
Fortunately there are communities such as !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com that help spread knowledge of such information across the Threadiverse.
The rules are usually really quite simple. Don’t be a dick and don’t spread hate. If “right wing opinions” can’t stay out of those simple rules, they’re not right wing opinions, they’re bigots and that has never and will never be okay.
Listen, there are assholes everywhere, and even mild centrists can be dicks and break the rules. We can speak about tendencies and generalizations if you like, but there are plenty of people who aren’t bigots who are giant flaming assholes on social media.
People that cry they are being silenced will say yes.
Right wingers have, or cause, trouble in open forums, so most social media that isn’t operated as a walled garden, tends to be more left leaning.
Depends on what kinda right wingers your talking about Ik a few people who believe in more laissez-faire free market economic policies, and they’re pretty chill
Socially center. Economically moderate leftist. Anti-authoritarian market socialist. I dare to say, like most elder American millennials.
Yes. Signing up is not easy. Most people here can understand written instructions and have some basic technical knowledge. People who are not stupid tend to lean left.
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
- Frank Wilhoit
Thanks, Frank! Very eloquently put!
