The probability of encountering a “non-extremist” right-winger is exactly the same as of encountering a “non-extremist” left-winger and is quite small. The vast majority of people are moderates, either left or right leaning.
Also, from the European perspective, the American left aka Democrats are quite right leaning :)
Hey look, a fascist word! Actually that’s quite offensive to hear, for an European, who’s family suffered from literal fascism. And the Americans now just throwing the word left and right and label people they disagree with. Sad.
Also I view both US Democrats and US Republicans as right wingers.
To give you more context: I support individual liberty, equal rights, welfare state in form of social healthcare and education; I oppose authoritarian ideologies; I believe in free market with some regulation to prevent exploiting and guarantee positive liberties, such as health; I support direct democracy, decentralization and non-interventionist policy.
I would characterize my political alignment as in between social democrat and social libertarian.
I oppose authoritarian ideologies; I believe in free market
Curious, you oppose authoritarian ideologies but are happy to let a dictatorship of capital and inherited wealth suck up everything except the table scraps.
Not a European or American here, but I love how Europeans shit on Americans as though the continent wasn’t full of collaborators and haven’t seen a rightward turn since the collapse of the USSR
Left extremism: everyone should be treated with dignity and we should live in an actual democracy or concensus based society(as opposed to bourgeois democracy which is empirically an oligarchy), and we shouldn’t be unwilling to use violence toward those goals(except some are radical pacifists)
Right Extremists: women should be forced to sleep with me and minorities should be gassed or used for slave labor. Also I should be exploited by my boss harder.
Enlightened centrist: I cannot tell the difference between these two things
Honestly tells us more about “centrists” than anything else.
Both words, “extremist” and “right-wing”, have no real hard definitions.
Is being socially conservative right wing? Is supporting capitalism right wing? Is inertia right wing? Is being progressive and, for example, anti-racist and pro-trans left wing? Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?
What about extremism? Is someone an extremist if they condone violence? Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally? Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?
Since these terms have no real definitions, it’s just shit-slinging.
Both words, “extremist” and “right-wing”, have no real hard definitions.
No, right-wing ideology has a very hard and clear-cut definition - all politics that protects power and privilege. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Is being socially conservative right wing?
It’s not supposed to be… but the only people self-applying the term in the US are fascists.
Is supporting capitalism right wing?
Yes. Period.
anti-racist and pro-trans left wing?
That’s not progressive - that’s radicalism.
Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?
Yes.
Is someone an extremist if they condone violence?
No.
Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally?
No, that’s radicalism.
Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?
Okay, cool, those are your opinion. There is no common ground on these definitions. I may agree with many of those, I may not agree with others, but after all these are just our opinions.
We both know that different people use these terms differently. The German political education ministry for example defines extremism as any anticonstitutional movement, and goes on to mention “caring too much about anti-fascism” as a form of left-wing extremism: SourceMeanwhile, they define radicalism as an ideology unwilling to compromise their positions… or someone who seeks to combat the root of a societal ill. Source
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream, and even “conflate” it with radicalism: SourceMeanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”, whatever those are, along with specifically mentioning people who condone the loss of British soldiers: Source
I am sure that many, many people would disagree with these definitions both inside and outside of these countries, let alone across political ideologies. No matter how strongly you feel about defining these words to your liking, fact is that they do not have clear definitions and are useless in any kind of serious debate. As long as a pro-capitalist queer activist is considered left-wing by about half the population and right-wing by the other, there cannot be common ground.
Yes, they’ve spent trillions on propaganda machines to make sure no clear meaning can be ascribed to rather simple political concepts. That doesn’t stop us from discovering their actual meanings at all.
We both know that different people use these terms differently.
Yes. See above.
The German political education ministry for example defines extremism
Sooo… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream
So, again… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”,
And… more of the same?
fact is that they do not have clear definitions
That’s because “definitions” are utterly useless. What isn’t useless is the meaning without which these political concepts cease to serve any purpose - and no amount of “muddying the water” will be able to rob them of that.
But you don’t have the authority over words. Words don’t have innate meaning given to them by some God; their meaning is defined by usage. And it’s very obvious that people use these terms very differently.
They do not have a meaning, since almost each native speaker uses them differently. You are not the authority over their meaning, no matter how righteous you think yourself, and neither do I. Meaning is defined by popular usage.
I have said nothing about authority. You, on the other hand…
their meaning is defined by usage
…ascribe those with the deepest pockets and vilest agendas the power to “define” the meaning of terms for you. Fox News gets to “define” the usage of the term socialism as “gubment doing stuff” (or whatever white supremacist nazi crack-pipe logic they are peddling these days) - but that doesn’t rob the term socialism of it’s actual meaning in any way or shape whatsoever. Fox News doesn’t get to wipe away hundreds of years of socialist theory - that’s why their ilk are resorting to burning books. They have failed to strip meaning from ideas despite all the trillions they have spent on their propaganda - so now they are resorting to the age-old tactic of simply attampting to prevent people from coming into contact with said meaning in the first place.
The exact same goes for what is “left” or “right,” or that which is “radical” or “reactionary” - usage does not dictate meaning. The distance between the usage and the actual meaning of a term merely demonstrates the intelectual integrity (or lack thereof) and/or understanding (or lack therof) of the user.
There is no “actual meaning”. There is no “using words wrong”. You do not understand how human language works. Language is defined by its users, not by you, or a dictionary, or a historian.
Respectfully mention that it’s kinda insensitive, kinda like, “hey man, don’t you think that’s kinda insensitive?” and you’ll probably figure out fairly quickly which one is the answer. Additionally, if they legit don’t know why it’s insensitive, then you can educate them!
Just remember that tone can be difficult to convey on the internet, and sometimes you have to exaggerate the intended tone for it to be understood. Additionally, in my experience, asking the question from the other person’s perspective (“don’t you think that’s kinda insensitive” vs “I think that’s kinda insensitive”) seems to help a lot.
Yeah, no. The Internet isn’t meant to be a safe space for bigots. They’re free to post and everyone else is free to chase them back under the rock where they belong.
and this is where the conversation usually devolves into a hate fuck of everyone actually agreeing but they used the wrong words so I'm all in on you being the bad guy now.
People have the right to say what they want (at least in the US, mostly), which includes people voicing their disagreement with stuff. It’s a two-way street and we’re better off with it that way. You can’t force someone to listen to you, just like someone can’t force you to listen to them.
What you can do, however, is attempt to educate people if they’re willing to be educated. If successful in doing so, you help decrease the amount of bigotry that exists. In my opinion, attempting to engage with an individual to determine their intent is a way of dealing with it. Why stay silent when you could help make the world a better place?
My brother in Christ, you are conflating free speech with the freedom from consequences. You are free to express your opinions. You will not be arrested for that. You can use the internet however you wish to express whatever opinions you have, no matter how stupid or hateful they are.
However, if your opinion sucks, the community will “deal with it” by down voting your dumb ass, and if you piss enough people off, you’ll get banned. Your rights have not been infringed. You’re just an asshole and people don’t want to listen to you anymore. You can freely go complain about it somewhere else.
I’m sure there is a community on the Internet that would welcome your shitty opinions into their little echo chamber. Go there if you don’t like it here. Or, as you say: “deal with it”.
I’ll make the analogy more clear to you. In 1984 the government got absolute information control, thats what you guys are worried about. In Fahrenheit 451 people themselves censored everything that offended anyone, eventually leading to all the books being burnt.
People have opinions, and lemmy is becoming a worse echochamber than reddit.
Except the irony here is that the people we don’t want here are those offended by everything, like different people existing, and are also the one banning books. most people aren’t as easily offended as you make out to be, but most people expect jokes and behavior to be done in good taste, which translates to meaning no harms and no hate. only extremists of all sorts usually break that “rule”.
But nobody is burning books, we’re just saying don’t be a piece of shit on our website. If you feel like being a piece of shit, boards.4chan.org/b/ is right here, perfectly safe and unburned.
Hey, leave rednecks out of it, the real ones mostly whant to be left alone and the more political ones are just syndicalist and pro workers rights. The nazi ones are city dwellers that own small dick energy trucks.
Man I know lots of small town rednecks and none of them are pro workers rights.
They’ve all been fooled into believing trickle down economics and at least half are anti vaxxers and while most aren’t vocal about LGBT stuff they all roll their eyes and wouldn’t give a shit if trans people were crucified. Oh and they all have oversized trucks just like every redneck does.
I don’t know where this idea of good rednecks comes from, there’s plenty of good people but they aren’t rednecks.
You wherent, you said good people cannot be rednecks, i.e. rural people. But wathever i dont whanna keep arguing about this. Just dont hate people because they have a rural lifestile, Ok?
Just check their comment history for like 30 seconds. Everyone makes a joke that misses the mark every now and then, but the shittiest people usually constantly spew their nonsense.
If you just browse through your home feed, sure. But actively going out of your way to see someone’s comment or post history because you don’t agree with what they said is childish and frankly a bit concerning. It really shows your character.
Wow, hmm… This is such a good comment to shitpost under but I’m not sure what angle to take. The fact you seem to be upset people publicly can get on a public website in public and look at the public posts the user posted in a public forum in public is a good one. But also the whole “just because they said a bunch of shit about hating the Jews doesn’t mean you should look at their post history you creep!” is a good one too. Now though, Im just wondering what you have to hide? So… I guess let’s take a look at your post history 🤷
Edit: Ohhhh… I found it everyone. He/she/they/zem doesn’t want people to know they don’t like LGBT people that much.
That’s not all you’ll find now is it? Apparently you don’t have the greatest view in LGBT people? I’m a shitposter, but not a prick. So I genuinely would like to know your controversial opinions on LGBT and give you the space to say your opinions and defend them. Like why is Pride Month “unwarranted”?
I do it all the time. I mainly do it to make sure I’m not arguing against a literal child. There’s many reasons why one might look at a person’s post history.
In the context of the meme shared by OP, we’re talking about things that go a bit beyond the scope of stuff we don’t disagree with. Like things that right wing extremists would say
Definitely do. Sometimes it’s the only way to know whether someone just had one bad take, or if they’re genuinely awful and not worth your time to reply to
The “extremist” part of Right wing “extremist” is meaningless. All reactionary politics are extreme, whether they take the active form of stochastic terror or they take the passive form of social murder (as defined by Engels in 1845, see below). The plausible deniability employed by reactionaries as camouflage among jokes is extremely transparent to anyone familiar enough with it.
Well, Nazi existed before the internet and would exist without it. They didn’t wait for the internet to enable themselves. There can’t be zero downside for having a 100% free platform, I do agree.
Yeah but Nazism spread via propaganda, which is what dogwhistling is a form of.
The Internet is the largest spreader of propaganda that humanity has ever seen, so it’s not surprising that it helped revitalize neo-nazism and fascism is general. It also served to make satire and actual radicalized behavior harder to detect. A lot of the time, 4chan boards use this “edgy satire” format to normalize the behavior (to an extent). See: the “MAP” misinformation campaign they did and how it reinforced actual pedophilia and demonized LGBT groups
Nah. Your definition of a Nazi is just anyone right of Mao. This place seems to be where the tankies went after getting banned from Reddit for encouraging violence toward people who don’t want to slob on government’s massive boot.
Lemmy seems to be more middle-left with just a few vocal extremists on both sides, actually. If anything the largest ‘extreme’ group i’ve seen here is anarchists, kind of the opposite of communists lol.
And the groups that do turn into a bunch of ‘tankies’ (slowly stares at Lemmygrad) have been defedrated across almost the entire fediverse…
I think you’re correct honestly but with Lemmygrad defederated like the exploding-heads people they surely make mainstream accounts for the sake of their lunacy being interacted with.
Maybe it’s my instance of choice but I sure do see a ton of people with authoritarian views pretending they’re just simply leftists when they’re just as unhinged as Qtards.
This instance (lemmy.ml) is one that still federates with lemmygrad, last I noticed. Even then, although the number of unhinged tankies I see here is non-zero, it still isn’t large. (In fact, it’s mainly one particular user that stands out. Y-something, with a name using a bunch of stylized high-unicode characters.)
When I’m on lemmy.world, which I think has defederated from lemmygrad, I pretty much don’t see them at all.
Frankly, I don’t think they’re bothering to try to insert themselves in lemmy.world.
What is marvellous about stupidity and shady morals is that they’re not exclusive to one political colour.
I guess you might be from the US : talking as there is just “the” left and “the” right without nuances and censoring words. I believe it’s something cultural.
The shit posters drive a wedge in a community and the people who don’t like the “innocent” jokes leave. This makes fertile ground for ideological take over. Rinse and repeat in Fandoms, subreddits, message boards, etc.
Alternatively, the people who are so brittle that shit-posting causes them to somehow turn on half of the community were always going to volatile puritans.
Except it’s not so black and white. Crude jokes can be funny and unfunny. Shit-posting is one thing but offensive jokes just often repeat themselves and I can understand wanting something new every now and then.
Add comment