| |
| ▲ | wkat4242 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > nowadays the louder voices on the left have sometimes been over-invested in freedom for culturally marginalised groups and under-invested in freedom for economically marginalised groups That's just marketing from the right to discourage people with average income to vote left ("they want to give all your money to the immigrants!"). The only people the left doesn't want freedom for is those who are actively trying to take it away. The bigger issue is that the left hasn't really existed in most countries for a long time, like the UK. "new labour" betrayed their heritage and adopted conservative points of view. Leaders who are trying to bring it back like Corbyn are ridiculed and marginalised. | | |
| ▲ | permo-w 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >That's just marketing from the right to discourage people with average income to vote left ("they want to give all your money to the immigrants!"). The only people the left doesn't want freedom for is those who are actively trying to take it away. this is misreading what I said. what I said is that the left isn't redistributing enough money | |
| ▲ | hellojesus 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The only people the left doesn't want freedom for is those who are actively trying to take it away. My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. Policies such as government supported housing, daycare, support this. These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard. Imo this is the folly of the left. | | |
| ▲ | permo-w 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard. relate every part of this sentence to the previous sentence | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. Policies such as government supported housing, daycare, support this. Oh absolutely. This is the way to make a more fair and balanced society. If the US doesn't want that, fine but it is of course also the reason for the no-go areas/ghettos, the amount of violent crime etc. Because people who are in the lowest class and have no upward mobility will tend to spiral away in crime, because that does pay. > These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard. We don't believe in unrestricted free-market capitalism anyway. | | |
| ▲ | hellojesus 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Oh absolutely. This is the way to make a more fair and balanced society. I understand its purpose, but it does restrict freedom. Personally I am much more a fan of charity because its voluntary nature preserves freedom, but I accept the duality of freedom is the potential for lousy initial conditions in life. > We don't believe in unrestricted free-market capitalism anyway. I think we should strive to push society to freer markets. Neither leading party seems to have interest, however. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 3 days ago | parent [-] | | As a socialist I don't think all markets should be free. Only the ones that aren't necessary for living. Energy, healthcare, public transport, even telecoms should be in government hands (as they all were in Holland in the 80s) |
|
| |
| ▲ | ryandv 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. > These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. Moreover despite all the constant pearl clutching about "systemic imbalances in resources between whites and People of Color" from the progressive left, you will find that most of these policies actually transfer wealth from the middle and upper-middle class ethnic minority demographics to rich white nepotists in the government. If progressives were actually serious about correcting racial wealth disparities, we would implement a taxation scheme that taxes whites more heavily, and ethnic minorities less so, based on some metric of the overall injustices visited upon them. Instead, the instant an ethnic minority gets a leg up on the system all the crabs in the progressive bucket demand that he get pulled back down. The words and slogans about "equity" are just hymnal responses that the white progressive uses to absolve themselves of all responsibility and accountability, since after accepting the Code of Conduct and the DEI statement they've already been "born again" out of the original sins of implicit bias and racism. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Ehh at the left we don't really think in terms of 'original sin'. Most of us are not religious, these things are simply meaningless to us. And DEI is something that is not about quotas at all. It's about having race and ethniticy not influencing the hiring process at all. Being "colorblind", which is ironically enough what Trump says how he wants things to be (but in reality he is very racist). | | |
| ▲ | ryandv 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Ehh at the left we don't really think in terms of 'original sin'. Most of us are not religious, these things are simply meaningless to us. You are under the core progressive delusion that choosing not to identify or label yourself as a thing, means you are in fact not that thing. In truth, the labeling of a thing is completely orthogonal to its ontological status. Concrete example: most of the left believes in a "gender identity," which is an immaterial, non-objective, unobservable, unscientific, metaphysical phenomenon that is somehow "more you" than the material reality of the physical body. If you strip away the gender theory jargon, you end up with a concept equivalent to "the soul", which is in contemporary discourse usually regarded as a religious, not a scientific, concept. You may have called it something else - a gender identity - but despite the difference in nomenclature you are still describing and referring to the same thing the religious devotees referred to when they talked about "the soul." > It's about having race and ethniticy not influencing the hiring process at all. Being "colorblind" Again more progressive fanfiction and creative wordsmithing with no relationship to reality. The Supreme Court struck down DEI policies (rebranded affirmative action) on the basis that they were, quoting Justice Clarence Thomas, "rudderless, race-based preferences" [0] [1]. This is literally the opposite of being "colorblind." I stand very firm in my position that everything progressives say is a direct negation of reality. [0] https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action... [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-courts-conserv... | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Concrete example: most of the left believes in a "gender identity," which is an immaterial, non-objective, unobservable, unscientific, metaphysical phenomenon that is somehow "more you" than the material reality of the physical body. It's about feeling. Someone with a different gender feels uncomfortable in their body (and that's putting it mildly). If you declare that unscientific you can throw out the entire psychological/psychiatric sciences. > You may have called it something else - a gender identity - but despite the difference in nomenclature you are still describing and referring to the same thing the religious devotees referred to when they talked about "the soul." Of course, religion was invented to help people make sense of the world (and of course as a means of control). Gender identity has always existed. It makes sense that religion invented some terms to explain it away. Because as a means of control and no IVF options etc this was contrary to religions' survival. After all, religion gets passed on through upbringing. If you approach a person as an adult with this kind of stuff most of them will reject it, but as kids they are impressionable and can be indoctrinated. If people have no kids, there's no new religious minions being produced and thus the religion's survival probability is a bit affected. This is why conservative people are so obsessed about birthrates. > Again more progressive fanfiction and creative wordsmithing with no relationship to reality. The Supreme Court struck down DEI policies (rebranded affirmative action) on the basis that they were, quoting Justice Clarence Thomas, "rudderless, race-based preferences" [0] [1]. This is literally the opposite of being "colorblind." But DEI is not affirmative action. I work in this field myself for a big multinational. We don't do that. There are no quotas. We do measure our effectiveness with it (If you're in a country with 90% latino people and hire 80% caucasians obviously something is wrong) but we don't have hiring quotas. Instead what we do is management/HR training to recognise and avoid bias. And materials to improve understanding of minority needs, like LGBTIQ+ (which is the area I do some work in). A lot of managers wouldn't even have known what nonbinary is for example, they would just see someone appear for an interview and dismiss them as 'weird'. They also wouldn't understand the specific issues they could encounter in the workplace. This is what we're working against. Affirmative action is something that companies do that don't actually care about DEI but just want their "numbers" to look good. Quotas is the easiest way to solve "the numbers" but not actually do the hard work of removing bias. Meaning minority people will get hired but for the wrong reasons, and they will still have issues in the workplace resulting from lack of understanding. This is not the way to approach it, only when you're a lazy company. | | |
| ▲ | ryandv 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > It's about feeling. This is equally unscientific. > If you declare that unscientific you can throw out the entire psychological/psychiatric sciences. May as well, given the catastrophe that is the replication crisis [2]. Besides, psychology has grown divorced from its roots, which are found in religion as a proto-psychology of mind (which is the modern term for what would have classically been known as "the soul"). You can further investigate the correspondences between religion, mysticism, and psychology in Jung's "Psychology and Alchemy." > Gender identity has always existed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far there is no evidentiary basis for the "gender identity" in the body; some would even say that there cannot be a biological basis of gender, for this "holds the societal acceptance of transgenderism hostage to a biological account of sex-gender." [0] Absent any biological or physical evidence I can only surmise that "gender identities" either do not exist, or are metaphysical; and to the scientifically-minded, these two statements are functionally equivalent. In fact, I could even just as easily say "souls have always existed." The paper [0] even continues on to state, essentially, that gender is an "intersubjectival" reality, which, ironically, is defined in an Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion: Rejecting the notion that knowledge is purely
empirical and cumulative, Gergen has argued
that “truth” is always value laden and, therefore
(drawing from critical theory), “reality” is not
immutable, but always is understood via interpre-
tation [3].
A rejection of empiricism is tantamount to a rejection of science, which is based on the former; so perhaps it's not surprising after all that the philosophical basis for gender is actually a psychological/religious concept.> as kids they are impressionable and can be indoctrinated. If people have no kids, there's no new religious minions being produced and thus the religion's survival probability is a bit affected. Much of the LGBTQ+, almost by definition, cannot reproduce biologically and thus cannot have kids. Would you also claim that LGBTQ+'s survival probability, as a neo-religion complete with rebranded souls, is also affected? How does such an ideology reproduce, if not through indoctrination of children? > But DEI is not affirmative action At a layman's first glance this would appear to be the case from the SCOTUS syllabus: More broadly, it is becoming increasingly clear that
discrimination on the basis of race—often packaged as “af-
firmative action” or “equity” programs—are based on the
benighted notion “that it is possible to tell when discrimi-
nation helps, rather than hurts, racial minorities.” Fisher
I, 570 U. S., at 328 (THOMAS, J., concurring). [1]
[0] https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/hypa.12327[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis [3] https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/referenceworken... | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Feelings are important because they affect us. They can hurt just as much as the physical. It's a condition of the mind, not the 'soul'. That doesn't make it any less real for the person experiencing those feelings. The concept of a soul was invented, as some entity that survives after death. So that even people with nothing to lose in life could be forced to conform using the many threats religion makes to their 'afterlife'. And LGBTIQ+ is not an ideology. People don't choose who they are attracted to. That's a conservative myth invented to make it seem like people are 'converted' to being gay or trans and that thus this could be prevented or reverted. There is no ideology nor agenda and it just is. We don't convert people. That's again a projection of something that religions do. They have agendas and conversion. And I don't care about what the SCOTUS says. They are completely irrelevant where I live (and they should be in the US too as they are heavily politicised by the appointment process by the president). | | |
| ▲ | ryandv 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > It's a condition of the mind, not the 'soul'. As stated in my previous post these are classically synonyms that refer to the exact same entity. This use of language goes back to at least Descartes (translation by E. Haldane): to speak accurately I am not more than a thing which thinks,
that is to say a mind or a soul, or an understanding, or a
reason, which are terms whose significance was formerly
unknown to me [0].
This use of the term "soul" even goes back to Plato and Socrates, who used the Greek term psyche to refer to this concept [1] [4]. I leave the remainder of the inference to you.> LGBTIQ+ is not an ideology. Why not? > We don't convert people. No, the LGBTQ+ just bifurcate the world into "allies" and "enemies". They mandate the use of neopronouns and neodemonyms, using letters not even in the alphabets of other languages, and try to correct perceived "gendered language" in languages that have no concept of gender in their grammar to begin with. People who refuse to prostrate themselves before your linguistic imperialism get cancelled and/or fired because they are obviously deplorable bigots. Just look at how the LGBTQ+ was pushing "Filipinx" on people they have nothing to do with, an entire fucking ocean away, despite Tagalog already being ungendered and not having a letter X in its alphabet. [3] There were a bunch of whites who came to the Philippines and then installed not one, but two (Spanish, English) languages in the populace, to the point where time is still told in Spanish to this day, and native Filipinos cannot even speak pure Tagalog any more, resorting now to a hybrid of Tagalog and English. [2] Call them by any other name but those all look like instances of cultural imperialism and proselytization to me. Will whites ever learn? Or are they so blinded by their self-professed virtue and ~crosses~ pride flags that they think, certainly, that they are in the right, and all the homophobes and transphobes from all those other Conservative countries need to be enlightened to 21st century morals (those godless heathens)? > And I don't care about what the SCOTUS says. I'm running past my point of caring too, since all you do is write falsehood without citation. [0] https://yale.learningu.org/download/041e9642-df02-4eed-a895-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLFoUTJuGU [3] https://opinion.inquirer.net/133571/filipino-or-filipinx [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_theory_of_soul |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
