Opinion Radical left vs Radical Right poll

[mkess101]

The second part doesn't make sense to me. If my name is Robert, and I ask you to call me Bobby, am I asking you to make science take a backseat to my feelings? What difference does it make if it's Becky instead of Bobby? It's not a scientific question. It's just about social relations and how to treat people.

.

I think this part goes a long way in getting to the crux of why a lot of people are more than a little wary about how this is going. The biology of who we are has never fully defined human beings nor should it, but neither has it been utterly inconsequential in every facet of life. Which is now what we inch ever closer toward. "What does it matter" in terms of Becky vs Bobby? Probably doesn't, barring a slip up in a work setting where a reprimand or termination could come into play. That aside, as a society we've already decided that individuals can legally identify as whatever gender they choose. So far, only social norms have stopped things like biologically born males identifying as women to have careers in women's sports. Social norms have been shredded on this topic in the last few years, it's hard to imagine the courts not coming down on the side of allowing this. In fact, in MMA with Fallon Fox they already did (I think she'd gone through surgery etc but that has become irrelevant now too as body makeup doesn't factor into gender).

But that's probably getting too much into the weeds on a specific aspect of this (sports). The overarching point is that if we ignore biology in favor of "social convention" from a legal standpoint with the trans community, why would it stop there? Biologically, white males are MUCH closer to black males than they are to white women. It's not close, obviously. If a white male identifies as being black, should society be forced to recognize him as such? Should he be allowed to take advantage to diversity initiatives when pursuing jobs, etc?

Or gender diversity hiring practices? There's a ton of competition for firefighter jobs in my area apparently. And municipalities have gender diversity laws they need to follow. It's a job that requires passing of physical aptitude test that biological males are just far more likely to be able to do. Couldn't a man simply check the box that he identifies as female, knowing they are required to hire a certain % of females? He wouldn't even need to change anything, he could act like he always has. Any attempt to tell him he's "not a female" would be met with a lawsuit. 10 years ago it would likely have been laughed out of court, but not now.

Generally I shy away from the phrase "slippery slope" because I think it's overused. In this case though...we quite obviously aren't talking about just social niceties in how we refer to someone or what pronoun to use. Science is being case aside as irrelevant more and more in terms of how laws are shaped on this front.

On a personal level, I absolutely could not care less if people identify as...whatever. Biological male that's a woman or vice versa? Yep, knock yourself out, all good by me. Asian who says they identify as hispanic because they grew up in the barrio around only latino people? Sure, I don't care, go for it. Hell, if someone wants to identify as another species I don't care. "Oh you're actually a sea turtle? Umm, cool. Nice to meet you." But when laws and public policy are being changed based on this utter disregard for science that's another story altogether.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think this part goes a long way in getting to the crux of why a lot of people are more than a little wary about how this is going. The biology of who we are has never fully defined human beings nor should it, but neither has it been utterly inconsequential in every facet of life. Which is now what we inch ever closer toward. "What does it matter" in terms of Becky vs Bobby? Probably doesn't, barring a slip up in a work setting where a reprimand or termination could come into play. That aside, as a society we've already decided that individuals can legally identify as whatever gender they choose. So far, only social norms have stopped things like biologically born males identifying as women to have careers in women's sports. Social norms have been shredded on this topic in the last few years, it's hard to imagine the courts not coming down on the side of allowing this. In fact, in MMA with Fallon Fox they already did (I think she'd gone through surgery etc but that has become irrelevant now too as body makeup doesn't factor into gender).

But that's probably getting too much into the weeds on a specific aspect of this (sports). The overarching point is that if we ignore biology in favor of "social convention" from a legal standpoint with the trans community, why would it stop there? Biologically, white males are MUCH closer to black males than they are to white women. It's not close, obviously. If a white male identifies as being black, should society be forced to recognize him as such? Should he be allowed to take advantage to diversity initiatives when pursuing jobs, etc?

Or gender diversity hiring practices? There's a ton of competition for firefighter jobs in my area apparently. And municipalities have gender diversity laws they need to follow. It's a job that requires passing of physical aptitude test that biological males are just far more likely to be able to do. Couldn't a man simply check the box that he identifies as female, knowing they are required to hire a certain % of females? He wouldn't even need to change anything, he could act like he always has. Any attempt to tell him he's "not a female" would be met with a lawsuit. 10 years ago it would likely have been laughed out of court, but not now.

Generally I shy away from the phrase "slippery slope" because I think it's overused. In this case though...we quite obviously aren't talking about just social niceties in how we refer to someone or what pronoun to use. Science is being case aside as irrelevant more and more in terms of how laws are shaped on this front.

On a personal level, I absolutely could not care less if people identify as...whatever. Biological male that's a woman or vice versa? Yep, knock yourself out, all good by me. Asian who says they identify as hispanic because they grew up in the barrio around only latino people? Sure, I don't care, go for it. Hell, if someone wants to identify as another species I don't care. "Oh you're actually a sea turtle? Umm, cool. Nice to meet you." But when laws and public policy are being changed based on this utter disregard for science that's another story altogether.

I think this is getting pretty far afield from the aspect of the discussion that was more interesting to me, which is the point about science (there are a couple of distinct but arguably related issues here, and you're more interested in one while I'm more interested in the other). It's not anti-science to treat people the way they want to be treated in the way that it is to make claims on matters of objective truth that fly in the face of evidence and of our understanding of reality. Science is not in any way being cast aside when we decide to treat people respectfully, and that's true regardless of one feels the best way to deal with various groups of people and to weigh different people's conveniences, rights, and safety.

Going back to the point I made about mistakes vs. conflict, you're expressing your view about a matter of conflict (how do we prioritize different goals and interests), while I'm saying that this is, in fact, a matter of values conflict rather than science. In a discussion about the impact of various changes in fiscal or monetary policy, there is a right and wrong answer (though, of course, if we get the right answer about what will happen and what has happened, that still leaves a conflict about what should happen). Likewise, whether climate is changing as a result of human activity is a matter of objective truth, though one can oppose specific mitigation steps or the principle of engaging in collective action to mitigate such a problem, or something. See the difference?

 

[mkess101]

I think this is getting pretty far afield from the aspect of the discussion that was more interesting to me, which is the point about science (there are a couple of distinct but arguably related issues here, and you're more interested in one while I'm more interested in the other). It's not anti-science to treat people the way they want to be treated in the way that it is to make claims on matters of objective truth that fly in the face of evidence and of our understanding of reality. Science is not in any way being cast aside when we decide to treat people respectfully, and that's true regardless of one feels the best way to deal with various groups of people and to weigh different people's conveniences, rights, and safety.

Going back to the point I made about mistakes vs. conflict, you're expressing your view about a matter of conflict (how do we prioritize different goals and interests), while I'm saying that this is, in fact, a matter of values conflict rather than science. In a discussion about the impact of various changes in fiscal or monetary policy, there is a right and wrong answer (though, of course, if we get the right answer about what will happen and what has happened, that still leaves a conflict about what should happen). Likewise, whether climate is changing as a matter of human activity is a matter of objective truth, though one can oppose specific mitigation steps or the principle of engaging in collective action to mitigate such a problem, or something. See the difference?

Of course. Your example about fiscal or monetary policy, so long as you're speaking in general terms I think that's true. "If we do x...something close to Y will likely happen and here's why...". Climate change yes, agree. Once in the weeds climate scientists will disagree on some specifics for sure, but in general there's scientific agreement that there's some impact by humans. And yes, how we deal with that is the "conflict" aspect, sure. Because steps taken to change it obviously bring about other things and the discussions about if those things are palatable, etc.

The conflict part though is always where there's...conflict ha ha. If someone is going to be impacted in a negative way (or that they perceive will be negative) they will find a way to either try to deny the science OR to deem it irrelevant. That was the parallel I was attempting to draw. It may not match up perfectly, but there's plenty of strong similarities. If you look at the motivations for denying science, they aren't out of a dislike for the science itself obviously. They're born out of people believing that what the science is saying can and will lead to action that they believe will negatively impact them.

IE--corporations are asked to cut down emissions. Corporations question climate change studies not because "Hey we hate science" but because the science moves politicians to enact laws that negatively affect the corporations (or at least they perceive it as a negative effect).

Trans people want biology ignored in certain cases not because "Hey we actually think biology is irrelevant" but because they feel that their place in society will be improved if biology is not at all used to determine gender. The argument of whether science is being cast aside when we choose to "treat someone respectfully" isn't so black and white, as evidenced by examples I gave earlier. The science matters specifically BECAUSE of the conflict. Is a biological male that decides he's female in order to take advantage of diversity hiring being "treated respectfully" when he gets the job over someone who's biologically a woman? Or is that person taking advantage of the fact that as a society we've deemed biology irrelevant?

Cliffs: Nobody is actually "anti science". People/companies/organizations etc attempt to make the case against specific things in science only because what science tells them gives them a perception that they'll feel a negative impact in one way or another. The motivation and "conflict" is what actually matters, right?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of course. Your example about fiscal or monetary policy, so long as you're speaking in general terms I think that's true. "If we do x...something close to Y will likely happen and here's why...". Climate change yes, agree. Once in the weeds climate scientists will disagree on some specifics for sure, but in general there's scientific agreement that there's some impact by humans. And yes, how we deal with that is the "conflict" aspect, sure. Because steps taken to change it obviously bring about other things and the discussions about if those things are palatable, etc.

The conflict part though is always where there's...conflict ha ha. If someone is going to be impacted in a negative way (or that they perceive will be negative) they will find a way to either try to deny the science OR to deem it irrelevant. That was the parallel I was attempting to draw. It may not match up perfectly, but there's plenty of strong similarities. If you look at the motivations for denying science, they aren't out of a dislike for the science itself obviously. They're born out of people believing that what the science is saying can and will lead to action that they believe will negatively impact them.

IE--corporations are asked to cut down emissions. Corporations question climate change studies not because "Hey we hate science" but because the science moves politicians to enact laws that negatively affect the corporations (or at least they perceive it as a negative effect).

Trans people want biology ignored in certain cases not because "Hey we actually think biology is irrelevant" but because they feel that their place in society will be improved if biology is not at all used to determine gender. The argument of whether science is being cast aside when we choose to "treat someone respectfully" isn't so black and white, as evidenced by examples I gave earlier. The science matters specifically BECAUSE of the conflict. Is a biological male that decides he's female in order to take advantage of diversity hiring being "treated respectfully" when he gets the job over someone who's biologically a woman? Or is that person taking advantage of the fact that as a society we've deemed biology irrelevant?

Cliffs: Nobody is actually "anti science". People/companies/organizations etc attempt to make the case against specific things in science only because what science tells them gives them a perception that they'll feel a negative impact in one way or another. The motivation and "conflict" is what actually matters, right?

The comparison is strained past the breaking point, especially when you bring in theoretical examples of people simply faking it to take advantage of loopholes and when you claim that trans people want biology ignored.

The point you put in the cliffs is very wrong, IMO. You're coming from a very liberal perspective, thinking that science is just universally recognized as a good way to know what's true. In fact, we were around in modern form for 200,000 years before it occurred to us to try to understand things from first principles, and it's very contrary to our instincts and to how people actually develop beliefs. I'd say that most people are anti-science, and some people have learned, at great difficulty, to prioritize science over group interest, religious belief, cultural beliefs, authority, etc. Because societies led by those people (i.e., liberals) have had disproportionate success, they've become emulated and entrenched (meaning like how our constitution is designed to keep America a liberal society). But it's still a constant struggle against our nature.

On the mistakes we're talking about, of course, wrong beliefs are motivated by something other than evidence and deeper understanding at the highest levels. But that's normal. Liberalism didn't spread by convincing everyone to be a scientist; it spread by showing people that if they trust science, their lives will be better, even if they personally don't understand it.

 

[mkess101]

The comparison is strained past the breaking point, especially when you bring in theoretical examples of people simply faking it to take advantage of loopholes and when you claim that trans people want biology ignored.

The point you put in the cliffs is very wrong, IMO. You're coming from a very liberal perspective, thinking that science is just universally recognized as a good way to know what's true. In fact, we were around in modern form for 200,000 years before it occurred to us to try to understand things from first principles, and it's very contrary to our instincts and to how people actually develop beliefs. I'd say that most people are anti-science, and some people have learned, at great difficulty, to prioritize science over group interest, religious belief, cultural beliefs, authority, etc. Because societies led by those people (i.e., liberals) have had disproportionate success, they've become emulated and entrenched (meaning like how our constitution is designed to keep America a liberal society). But it's still a constant struggle against our nature.

On the mistakes we're talking about, of course, wrong beliefs are motivated by something other than evidence and deeper understanding at the highest levels. But that's normal. Liberalism didn't spread by convincing everyone to be a scientist; it spread by showing people that if they trust science, their lives will be better, even if they personally don't understand it.

IDK...we already had someone physically born as a male in an actual sanctioned fight with a female. Maybe easy to call it a one-off, but as society do we actually want to be put in the position of judging who's "faking it" to take advantage of loopholes (which would be GAPING loopholes). I think whether trans people want biology "ignored" (my words I know) or simply deemed irrelevant lacks much importance in the context of the discussion, and is splitting hairs a bit. I don't know how else you reconcile someone who clearly has the biology of one sex stating that they need to be recognized in quite literally every way as the opposite sex.

As for whether human are inherently anti science...I suppose it depends on how you frame the discussion. Someone who had no grasp of the laws of gravity could stand at a cliff and throw rocks off it, seeing them fall to the bottom. This would be a very rudimentary science experiment that they'd use to then surmise that jumping off that cliff would lead to them dying by extreme impact at the bottom. For sure throughout history societies that have figured out how to make science work best for them have flourished more. You can call it liberal, from a historical context maybe that's accurate? But yes, cultures that used proper farming techniques based on science didn't starve, while those who ignored it in favor of chanting to a deity to grow crops went hungry. Is it still our nature to want to do that rain dance to make crops grow as opposed to constructing irrigation systems? Maybe? I've never tried to think of it in those terms. The species advances and folds in new information and beliefs as we go on. It's dynamic imo, not static.

 

[Jack V Savage]

IDK...we already had someone physically born as a male in an actual sanctioned fight with a female. Maybe easy to call it a one-off, but as society do we actually want to be put in the position of judging who's "faking it" to take advantage of loopholes (which would be GAPING loopholes). I think whether trans people want biology "ignored" (my words I know) or simply deemed irrelevant lacks much importance in the context of the discussion, and is splitting hairs a bit. I don't know how else you reconcile someone who clearly has the biology of one sex stating that they need to be recognized in quite literally every way as the opposite sex.

They want it neither ignored nor deemed irrelevant to anything that it's relevant to. I don't think my view on this is sinking in. Try this: Imagine we live in a world where people put a lot of emphasis on height. People over 6'0" get a payment from the gov't, get to sit in front in public transportation, have the front seats reserved for them at sporting events, etc. Short people then lobby for a change in the system, whereby everyone is equal. Would tall people be right to say that short people are ignoring biology to advocate for that change? "They just want to pretend that they're not short? That's anti-science! Ignoring biology."

The question of whether biological men should compete with women in sports is entirely a question of social values (I happen to agree with you that they should not, but that's neither here nor there). It's not a scientific one. It can be informed by science, but unlike "is the world getting warmer?" it can't be solved by it.

As for whether human are inherently anti science...I suppose it depends on how you frame the discussion. Someone who had no grasp of the laws of gravity could stand at a cliff and throw rocks off it, seeing them fall to the bottom. This would be a very rudimentary science experiment that they'd use to then surmise that jumping off that cliff would lead to them dying by extreme impact at the bottom. For sure throughout history societies that have figured out how to make science work best for them have flourished more. You can call it liberal, from a historical context maybe that's accurate? But yes, cultures that used proper farming techniques based on science didn't starve, while those who ignored it in favor of chanting to a deity to grow crops went hungry. Is it still our nature to want to do that rain dance to make crops grow as opposed to constructing irrigation systems? Maybe? I've never tried to think of it in those terms. The species advances and folds in new information and beliefs as we go on. It's dynamic imo, not static.

Actually, for most of our history as a species that farms, science would have fucked up farming techniques. Ditto for food preparation. I've given the example of nixtamalization before. It's a food-processing technique that is somewhat involved and difficult, and that people used for a long time without knowing its benefits. They were just following what they learned from elders. If some liberal went back in time, and said, "why are we doing this?" They would not have gotten a reasonable answer, and they likely would have stopped doing it. They wouldn't have seen any immediate consequences, but over a period of years, they'd develop severe health problems related to malnutrition. That is one of thousands of examples you can give. For most of our history, culture and religion were the main methods of transmission of knowledge and skills, and they are not the same as science, though looking backward, science can effectively sanction many cultural or religious practices.

The benefit we have in the west is that the Western (to a greater extent) Catholic Church broke up kinship groups throughout much of the regions that they had authority over, which essentially freed/forced people to think differently in ways that eventually led to liberalism. Great book on the subject just dropped. Here's a review. But it sort of glosses over (does briefly mention) regional differences within WEIRD countries. Certain parts of America, for example (the South generally, rural areas) are more clannish and less open to that type of thinking.

 

[Sisyphos]

The radical right is a reaction to the radical left.
Same thing for the past 100+ years.

You have to study history to understand where these political currents come from in the West.
Before WW1, most of the Western world lived in ultra-conservative societies. A sort of hierarchy and order reigned, most of it was peaceful and accepted by society (position of women, position of the rich, etc).

Then horrendous WW1 happened and radical left wingers, who had more or less been agitating for the abolition of the tradition & hierarchy (monarchy/etc) in various countries, finally had fertile ground to plant their ideas. Lots of disgruntled Europeans drank the ideology of the left, which told them that "wars is where the capitalists have the poor kill each other" etc. This resulted in communism which essentially took over half of Europe, and resulted in millions of deaths & tortures. At the same time, this communist "Bolshevism" alarmed much of the world which resulted in so called red scares. In Europe it went further and in some countries, veterans of WW1 and other patriots organised what would become Fascist movements. Their creed was reactionary. To prevent the communists from taking over, the Fascists were "needed" because the centrist liberals were too weak and unable to deal with leftist radicalism. So the brown & black shirts were created to "give a good spanking" to the Antifa.

In between, we have WW2, but essentially in 2020 the situation is quite similar, except the right is extremely weakened so the left has even more fertile ground to push its ideology, which by now is not just about class warfare but also integrates race & gender warfare (critical race theory).

If the situation keeps trending the way it does, it's highly possible that Anglophone countries will adopt these principles in government soon enough.

 

[mkess101]

They want it neither ignored nor deemed irrelevant to anything that it's relevant to. I don't think my view on this is sinking in. Try this: Imagine we live in a world where people put a lot of emphasis on height. People over 6'0" get a payment from the gov't, get to sit in front in public transportation, have the front seats reserved for them at sporting events, etc. Short people then lobby for a change in the system, whereby everyone is equal. Would tall people be right to say that short people are ignoring biology to advocate for that change? "They just want to pretend that they're not short? That's anti-science! Ignoring biology."

The question of whether biological men should compete with women in sports is entirely a question of social values (I happen to agree with you that they should not, but that's neither here nor there). It's not a scientific one. It can be informed by science, but unlike "is the world getting warmer?" it can't be solved by it.



Actually, for most of our history as a species that farms, science would have fucked up farming techniques. Ditto for food preparation. I've given the example of nixtamalization before. It's a food-processing technique that is somewhat involved and difficult, and that people used for a long time without knowing its benefits. They were just following what they learned from elders. If some liberal went back in time, and said, "why are we doing this?" They would not have gotten a reasonable answer, and they likely would have stopped doing it. They wouldn't have seen any immediate consequences, but over a period of years, they'd develop severe health problems related to malnutrition. That is one of thousands of examples you can give. For most of our history, culture and religion were the main methods of transmission of knowledge and skills, and they are not the same as science, though looking backward, science can effectively sanction many cultural or religious practices.

The benefit we have in the west is that the Western (to a greater extent) Catholic Church broke up kinship groups throughout much of the regions that they had authority over, which essentially freed/forced people to think differently in ways that eventually led to liberalism. Great book on the subject just dropped. Here's a review. But it sort of glosses over (does briefly mention) regional differences within WEIRD countries. Certain parts of America, for example (the South generally, rural areas) are more clannish and less open to that type of thinking.

Edit, somehow my 2 paragraphs were wiped out, ugh. Will need to repost. Going for a run, will do it a bit later.

 

[mmafan2000]

The radical right is a reaction to the radical left.
Same thing for the past 100+ years.

You have to study history to understand where these political currents come from in the West.
Before WW1, most of the Western world lived in ultra-conservative authoritarian societies. A sort of hierarchy and order reigned, most of it was peaceful and accepted by society (position of women, position of the rich, etc).

First you say the radical right is a reaction to the radical left. Then you say most of the Western world lived in ultra-conservative authoritarian societies. So by contradicting yourself you show that the left is the reaction to the right. Just like now the left say their reaction is to Trump. So....it seems the left reaction is to the right.

 

[Sisyphos]

First you say the radical right is a reaction to the radical left. Then you say most of the Western world lived in ultra-conservative authoritarian societies. So by contradicting yourself you show that the left is the reaction to the right. Just like now the left say their reaction is to Trump. So....it seems the left reaction is to the right.

No. Again you need to study history to understand the details of it.
The pre-WW1 societies were not radical right. Conservatism & Fascism are two different things. I know the left love to mix the two but they are different. Fascism like Communism are modernist philosophies. Fascism opposes both the conservatives and the communists. Again the fundamental drive of Fascism is: 1) Opposition to the radical left, 2) Perceived ineffectual Conservative right.

As to what drives the radical left (at the time), were mainly social inequalities in the capitalist system, but above all (and this is the consensus more or less among anyone outside the radical left) they had radical solutions to problems, mainly driven by power and acquiring it. Just like the Jacobins in France and why they wanted to kill the nobility. There is nothing noble within the radical left leadership historically, just a ruthless group that want to take power (Lenin, ex-gangster Stalin, etc).

 

[deviake]

What is defined (and not so) as "radical" is often curious to me. Also seems to me that part of the subjectivity of "radical" is devoid of a historical and cultural analysis/context

 

[mmafan2000]

What is defined (and not so) as "radical" is often curious to me. Also seems to me that part of the subjectivity of "radical" is devoid of a historical and cultural analysis/context

"Radical politics denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform. The process of adopting radical views is termed radicalisation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics

 

[evansusmc2]

*Based solely on Summer 2020?*
The left tried to burn down the United States. While celebrities (not all) and mainstream media deflected and cheered them on.

*Based solely on a foreign invasion*
There are a few countries PRAYING that the left takes full control of the US.

 

[deviake]

"Radical politics denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform. The process of adopting radical views is termed radicalisation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics

I know the definition but that has little to do with my comment. For example gay marriage is no longer considered radical (unless there's some polling data I'm aware of that suggests otherwise), so while what you may personally consider the "radical left" supports it, it's - in my view - unnecessary of inclusion. I think you put a sincere effort into the OP I just have a few critiques.

I suppose when tackling issues on an issue-for-issue basis it's hard to get out of the weeds, so maybe my comments are superficial and aren't really adding any value here.

 

[Natural Order]

Ok, let me address some of your points.

1. Fair enough to admit you a radical. You don't pretend you are something else. I appreciate that. That might mean what ever I say you will probably ignore. But I'll give it a shot.

2. It's impossible to abolish capitalism. It's simply too effective a system to remove. Countries compete, leverage insensitive, reward hard work, supply and demand and has proven to be the best production system the world has ever soon. Good luck my radical friend. It's like trying to abolish democracy. Won't happen. Put your energies into more useful things. Like maybe trying to amend it. Look at it's criticisms and come up with a solution. When you say you want to abolish it people will think you are a clown.

3. What do you want to replace capitalism with? Sigh...i dread to ask this question, but I'll bite. Marxism? It's only killed 25 million people in the 20th century though starvation and wars. But go ahead, tell me.

4. yes, because something is radical doesn't make it bad. Its the end goal that the radicals want that scares people.

25 million in the 20th century? Multiply that by at least four to get to a more accurate figure.

Most of these so-called "radicals" will shriek about wanting to tear everything down without having one iota of an alternative to suggest. And typically even if they do have an idea, their lack of education in history will shine brightly.

You're right too, capitalism can't go anywhere at this point. Only full scale war across the globe could provide a reset option to capitalism. But it's a clear cut sign that capitalism is failing when waves of socialist talking points start to show their ugly heads. This should be a wake up to the 1% that too much wealth gap exists and that they need to dump 80% back to the people buying their shit. But it appears they still don't understand this imperative, as a method of keeping capitalism in play under a relatively balanced and fair methodology.

 

[mmafan2000]

I know the definition but that has little to do with my comment. For example gay marriage is no longer considered radical (unless there's some polling data I'm aware of that suggests otherwise), so while what you may personally consider the "radical left" supports it, it's - in my view - unnecessary of inclusion. I think you put a sincere effort into the OP I just have a few critiques.

I suppose when tackling issues on an issue-for-issue basis it's hard to get out of the weeds, so maybe my comments are superficial and aren't really adding any value here.

Well, I think radical politics encompasses 2 things:

1. Mainly the method of attaining an ideological goal: BLM, ANTIFA violence, looting, arson, terrorist acts by PLO, Marxist movements, PPK, Tamil Tigers...etc. The use of violence to obtain an end goal.

2. Their agenda: BLM had on their website the call to abolish nuclear families. This is a radical and dangerous movement, to name many others and is counter productive to social, family well being. Irony is when anti fascists become fascists themselves. When BLM burns down a majority of black businesses. It is the job of centrists to contain and denounce this insanity on both right and left sides.

Now WHY this happens is a different issue. It could be a reaction, it could be aggression, opportunism, injustice or just bat shit crazy.

Agree?

 

[Plissken]

I mean some of things listed as being radical aren't; some like an anti-gun stance on the left are a mixed bag as you have anarcho-communist types wielding guns now while others on the left are very anti-gun so it's not some universal left ideal, so not all far left types subscribe to this fully (though some of those that have embraced guns likely want their enemies to have none).
Far left and far right are both sort of split into authoritarian and "libertarian" left and right. I mean there's a marked difference from Neocon types and super libertarian types on the right. I think there's a little more overlap among the two branches of the left right now, but they are still separate.

 

[deviake]

Well, I think radical politics encompasses 2 things:

1. Mainly the method of attaining an ideological goal: BLM, ANTIFA violence, looting, arson, terrorist acts by PLO, Marxist movements, PPK, Tamil Tigers...etc. The use of violence to obtain an end goal.

2. Their agenda. BLM had on their website the call to abolish nuclear families. This is a radical and dangerous movement, to name many others and is counter productive to social, family well being. Irony is when anti fascists become fascists themselves. It is the job of centrists to contain and denounce this insanity on both right and left sides.

Agree?

Yeah, taking what I'm seeing here on its face I think it's fair, however I stand by my earlier points, such as that some of the things listed aren't even considered radical by society at large. I also disagree with the final comment, as it seems to paint centrists as the parents in the room of rowdy children, however centrism is subjective to a particular society and in the case of the US, the Overton Window is further right than many other first world nations

 

[Sisyphos]

@NaturalOrder

You're right too, capitalism can't go anywhere at this point. Only full scale war across the globe could provide a reset option to capitalism. But it's a clear cut sign that capitalism is failing when waves of socialist talking points start to show their ugly heads. This should be a wake up to the 1% that too much wealth gap exists and that they need to dump 80% back to the people buying their shit. But it appears they still don't understand this imperative, as a method of keeping capitalism in play under a relatively balanced and fair methodology.

The thing is that the modern left is not really pushing for communist arguments anymore (despite what some of the absolutely retarded American right is saying).
The neoliberal left and the neoliberal right are colluding. Their grandmaster plan for the problem of Capitalism is called the great reset and includes things like UBI, where the proletariat (or shall I say, the 99%) will live a sort of neo-feudal enslavement to the 1% without realising its happening, and apathetic.

You have to understand that the 1% is fully aware that socialist/proletariat revolutions are a danger.
You think they are stupid and didn't study history lmao? Didn't study the Bolshevik revolution or the Great depression? They want to avoid a repeat of that.

What they want is a system where the man is enslaved but without him realising he is, because his hunger level and disposable income level is acceptable. This is the system they're trying to implement.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

If you are white, radical left.
If you are non-white, radical right.

Since most Americans are white, radical left is worse. It's a numbers game.

And numbers game in terms of assault, robberies, property damage and looting...

Again...the radical left win these categories handily