Opinion Radical left vs Radical Right poll

[Fox by the Sea]

radical left is a societal cancer and should be stopped at all costs.

 

[John of Arc]

It's not symmetrical, as liberalism is based on the idea that objective reality exists and that we can approximate knowledge of it. Certain biases are natural, either in people in general or in Western people specifically, but when liberals get facts wrong, it is a failing. Rightists of various stripes aren't trying to get things right, as defined by science. And sex or gender differences are not things that the left denies. I think you're confusing the liberal or left position that transgendered people should be treated with respect and protected from violence and certain types of discrimination with something else.

I think you are out of touch with modern liberals if you genuinely believe that it's a common idea that an objective reality exists. If anything there has been a constant march towards whatever is say is my truth is the truth in leftist circles. Many modern liberals will tell you that trans people are biologically no different than people born as women, that is nonsense. There is also a push to put trans people into sports as their chosen gender completely dismissing the fact that men are better cut out for physical activity, I can assure you this push does not come from the right. I'm neither left nor right personally but it seems you confuse your own position as a leftist as equating to the majority of leftists and I can honestly say that most are as irrational as right wingers. Anyone who willingly puts themselves in a box that defines their political opinions is never going to be sharpest tool in the box.

 

[mkess101]

It's not symmetrical, as liberalism is based on the idea that objective reality exists and that we can approximate knowledge of it. Certain biases are natural, either in people in general or in Western people specifically, but when liberals get facts wrong, it is a failing. Rightists of various stripes aren't trying to get things right, as defined by science. And sex or gender differences are not things that the left denies. I think you're confusing the liberal or left position that transgendered people should be treated with respect and protected from violence and certain types of discrimination with something else.

In respect to the discussion on trans people...I think as usual the issue lies in trying to nail down who "the left" or "the liberal" position. As evidenced by the backlash against JK Rowling, lesser extent Gina Carano, etc. The boundaries are being pushed all the time on what people get outraged over. I watched Dave Chappelle's standup last night from 2017 that he did in TX that got the trans community in an uproar. This is a stand up comic mind you, and they were up and calling for him to be cancelled real quick.

Back to defining "the left" or "the liberal" position...it's ever changing of course. The risk of not being woke enough or supporting the "oppressed" is enough to keep nudging many on "the left" further and further. My view on trans people is yes, absolutely treat them with respect. They should enjoy the benefits of society the same as anyone else. But as Chappelle said, "Now you need me to change my whole prounoun game???" Accepting them as valued citizens with the same rights as everyone else isn't good enough. We are now expected to ignore biology in how we refer to someone's gender. There's no objective analysis of what defines "treating someone with respect". They define it, and if you don't live up to their definition, you're in the crosshairs. And in the case of Carano, they also expected HER to actively participate by listing her "preferred pronouns" and then harassed her nonstop about it. When she finally mocked them a bit back (in a good natured way, not maliciously), cancel culture out in full force wanting Disney to give her the axe.

This is probably a topic that's just on the fringe of the point of this thread so don't want to make this too much a focal point but did want to say this because watching Chappelle last night had it front of mind for me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think you are out of touch with modern liberals if you genuinely believe that it's a common idea that an objective reality exists.

I get that you think that, and I think that you're out of touch with modern liberals if you doubt it. If you get your idea about what modern liberals think from right-wing media (who often amplify weak men), you are missing a lot.

If anything there has been a constant march towards whatever is say is my truth is the truth in leftist circles. Many modern liberals will tell you that trans people are biologically no different than people born as women, that is nonsense.

Are you aware of any examples of any influential liberal (much less many) who has said that? I regularly read stuff by liberals, and I've never seen that sentiment expressed except by rightists saying that that's what liberals think.

There is also a push to put trans people into sports as their chosen gender completely dismissing the fact that men are better cut out for physical activity, I can assure you this push does not come from the right.

Wait, this is very different. It's not "anti-science" to allow transpeople to compete in sports against people whose sex matches their gender. You might reasonably say that it's unfair or even dangerous, but that's a question of how one weighs different values rather than a scientific question (while "is human activity causing climate change?," "do regressive tax cuts cause growth to increase to the point that they are self-financing?" and other issues I alluded to are questions that have objectively right and wrong answers).

In respect to the discussion on trans people...I think as usual the issue lies in trying to nail down who "the left" or "the liberal" position. As evidenced by the backlash against JK Rowling, lesser extent Gina Carano, etc. The boundaries are being pushed all the time on what people get outraged over. I watched Dave Chappelle's standup last night from 2017 that he did in TX that got the trans community in an uproar. This is a stand up comic mind you, and they were up and calling for him to be cancelled real quick.

Back to defining "the left" or "the liberal" position...it's ever changing of course. The risk of not being woke enough or supporting the "oppressed" is enough to keep nudging many on "the left" further and further. My view on trans people is yes, absolutely treat them with respect. They should enjoy the benefits of society the same as anyone else. But as Chappelle said, "Now you need me to change my whole prounoun game???" Accepting them as valued citizens with the same rights as everyone else isn't good enough. We are now expected to ignore biology in how we refer to someone's gender. There's no objective analysis of what defines "treating someone with respect". They define it, and if you don't live up to their definition, you're in the crosshairs. And in the case of Carano, they also expected HER to actively participate by listing her "preferred pronouns" and then harassed her nonstop about it. When she finally mocked them a bit back (in a good natured way, not maliciously), cancel culture out in full force wanting Disney to give her the axe.

This is probably a topic that's just on the fringe of the point of this thread so don't want to make this too much a focal point but did want to say this because watching Chappelle last night had it front of mind for me.

Again, this is all fine. There are legitimate discussions to be had around how we weigh different values and conveniences, etc. Those are not easy questions, IMO, and people acting in good faith can come up with different answers. What I was disagreeing with is the notion that "call transpeople by their preferred names/pronouns" (for example) is an "anti-science" position, equivalent to creationism or climate-change denial.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Radical left: antifa, BLM, woke justice warriors, toxic cancel culture, de-fund the police, quota based not merit-bases social systems, anti-free speech, sanctuary cities, illegal migrants for future votes, socialism, bigger government, higher taxes for the rich, legalize all drugs and gay marriage, looting and rioting, victim Olympics, fostering anti-white racism, public safe spaces, separation of church and state, decrease military spending, reparations, anti-NRA, anti-white education campaigns, genre neutral bathrooms, atheism, force 8 year old to have sex changes, men are evil, black supremacists, allow people in jail to vote, etc

You forgot...

*Ban & confiscation of all firearms and ammo.
*Suspension of the US Constitution.
*Unlimited immigration / Open borders.
*3rd trimester abortion, and after birth abortion.
*Defund the police.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Radical Right, easily.

If you want a rural nation dominated by White Males, social classism, racial incarcerations, and mass shootings

There really is not such things as "radical" left. Rather they are overly progressive for our timeline, but nothing radical about them.

Yeah the radical left isn't radical like Gropin' Joe Biden is just over-affectionate...

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Radical right: wants to see family over the holidays

Radical left: wants to see families fined and jailed for getting together over the holidays.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

I was in the 3rd precinct in Minneapolis the first night of the G. Floyd riots....Not a tiki torch in sight.

 

[mkess101]

Again, this is all fine. There are legitimate discussions to be had around how we weigh different values and conveniences, etc. Those are not easy questions, IMO, and people acting in good faith can come up with different answers. What I was disagreeing with is the notion that "call transpeople by their preferred names/pronouns" (for example) is an "anti-science" position, equivalent to creationism or climate-change denial.

I would categorize it more as "science irrelevant" than "anti science" I guess? The view that biology does not matter to the point where if someone doesn't ACTIVELY agree, a group with an ever increasing amount of influence wants to harm their livelihood is a problem imo. It might be a different problem than the others, but it's still a problem.

We only see the celebrity aspect, but this is something that's prevalent across the country now. Our corporate training videos now make it very clear that reprimand and even termination is on the table with even one slip up on the trans front. If Steve that you've worked with for 8 years decides he's now Darlene and you (even by mistake) refer to them as Steve, you can be fired. My buddy in MN said a guy in his company was put on administrative leave and ordered to attend sensitivity training for this exact scenario. There was a push from some in the company's leadership evidently to terminate the guy.

 

[whippersnapper]

In respect to the discussion on trans people...I think as usual the issue lies in trying to nail down who "the left" or "the liberal" position. As evidenced by the backlash against JK Rowling, lesser extent Gina Carano, etc. The boundaries are being pushed all the time on what people get outraged over. I watched Dave Chappelle's standup last night from 2017 that he did in TX that got the trans community in an uproar. This is a stand up comic mind you, and they were up and calling for him to be cancelled real quick.

Back to defining "the left" or "the liberal" position...it's ever changing of course. The risk of not being woke enough or supporting the "oppressed" is enough to keep nudging many on "the left" further and further. My view on trans people is yes, absolutely treat them with respect. They should enjoy the benefits of society the same as anyone else. But as Chappelle said, "Now you need me to change my whole prounoun game???" Accepting them as valued citizens with the same rights as everyone else isn't good enough. We are now expected to ignore biology in how we refer to someone's gender. There's no objective analysis of what defines "treating someone with respect". They define it, and if you don't live up to their definition, you're in the crosshairs. And in the case of Carano, they also expected HER to actively participate by listing her "preferred pronouns" and then harassed her nonstop about it. When she finally mocked them a bit back (in a good natured way, not maliciously), cancel culture out in full force wanting Disney to give her the axe.

This is probably a topic that's just on the fringe of the point of this thread so don't want to make this too much a focal point but did want to say this because watching Chappelle last night had it front of mind for me.

Like

 

[Jack V Savage]

I would categorize it more as "science irrelevant" than "anti science" I guess? The view that biology does not matter to the point where if someone doesn't ACTIVELY agree, a group with an ever increasing amount of influence wants to harm their livelihood is a problem imo. It might be a different problem than the others, but it's still a problem.

We only see the celebrity aspect, but this is something that's prevalent across the country now. Our corporate training videos now make it very clear that reprimand and even termination is on the table with even one slip up on the trans front. If Steve that you've worked with for 8 years decides he's now Darlene and you (even by mistake) refer to them as Steve, you can be fired. My buddy in MN said a guy in his company was put on administrative leave and ordered to attend sensitivity training for this exact scenario. There was a push from some in the company's leadership evidently to terminate the guy.

Yes, it's not a scientific question at all. And sure, not all problems relate to scientific questions. You and I discussed that very point yesterday. How to weigh respect and freedom for some people against the freedom and convenience of others is often a difficult issue with no clear answer, and "some people make decisions on one end or another of this issue that are wrong" is a statement I think everyone on all sides would agree with (different people make what I'd consider bad decisions on *both* ends here is one I'd agree with). It's not really related to the broader subdiscussion, IMO, which is just about science and politics.

 

[mkess101]

Yes, it's not a scientific question at all. And sure, not all problems relate to scientific questions. You and I discussed that very point yesterday. How to way respect and freedom for some people against the freedom and convenience of others is often a difficult issue with no clear answer, and "some people make decisions on one end or another of this issue that are wrong" is a statement I think everyone on all sides would agree with (different people make what I'd consider bad decisions on *both* ends here is one I'd agree with). It's not really related to the broader subdiscussion, IMO, which is just about science and politics.

Fair, but I'd say it's loosely about science because people are being asked to ignore biology in the name of not offending others.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fair, but I'd say it's loosely about science because people are being asked to ignore biology in the name of not offending others.

I don't think anyone's being asked to ignore biology. Gender dysphoria appears to be visible in brains, for one thing. However, even if that weren't the case, "should we treat people the way they ask to be treated?" is not a matter for biologists.

 

[mkess101]

I don't think anyone's being asked to ignore biology. Gender dysphoria appears to be visible in brains, for one thing. However, even if that weren't the case, "should we treat people the way they ask to be treated?" is not a matter for biologists.

To the first part yeah there's some debate. There's still much more from a bilogical standpoint that is established aside from that in regards to gender.

The second part isn't a question for biologists but biology itself is still science that has to take a backseat to people's feelings when it comes to this topic.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To the first part yeah there's some debate. There's still much more from a bilogical standpoint that is established aside from that in regards to gender.

The second part isn't a question for biologists but biology itself is still science that has to take a backseat to people's feelings when it comes to this topic.

Yes, some debate, but the point is that even granting the odd premise that there is a scientific imperative to call people by a certain name or use a certain pronoun, it's not clear what the right course is. 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 partly what's going on here is a debate about what science is. I think this is instructive:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fysgqk4CjAwhBgNYT/fake-explanations

Once upon a time, there was an instructor who taught physics students. One day the instructor called them into the classroom and showed them a wide, square plate of metal, next to a hot radiator. The students each put their hand on the plate and found the side next to the radiator cool, and the distant side warm. And the instructor said, Why do you think this happens? Some students guessed convection of air currents, and others guessed strange metals in the plate. They devised many creative explanations, none stooping so low as to say “I don’t know” or “This seems impossible.”

And the answer was that before the students entered the room, the instructor turned the plate around.1

Consider the student who frantically stammers, “Eh, maybe because of the heat conduction and so?” I ask: Is this answer a proper belief? The words are easily enough professed—said in a loud, emphatic voice. But do the words actually control anticipation?

Ponder that innocent little phrase, “because of,” which comes before “heat conduction.” Ponder some of the other things we could put after it. We could say, for example, “Because of phlogiston,” or “Because of magic.”

“Magic!” you cry. “That’s not a scientific explanation!” Indeed, the phrases “because of heat conduction” and “because of magic” are readily recognized as belonging to different literary genres. “Heat conduction” is something that Spock might say on Star Trek, whereas “magic” would be said by Giles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

... (T)he substance of a model is the control it exerts on anticipation. If you say “heat conduction,” what experience does that lead you to anticipate ? Under normal circumstances, it leads you to anticipate that, if you put your hand on the side of the plate near the radiator, that side will feel warmer than the opposite side. If “because of heat conduction” can also explain the radiator-adjacent side feeling cooler, then it can explain pretty much anything.

And as we all know by this point (I do hope), if you are equally good at explaining any outcome, you have zero knowledge. “Because of heat conduction,” used in such fashion, is a disguised hypothesis of maximum entropy. It is anticipation-isomorphic to saying “magic.” It feels like an explanation, but it’s not.

Compare the issues we've been discussing. If I say, "regressive tax cuts will increase economic growth so much that they'll be self-financing (or noticeably at all)," I'm expressing a belief about the world that flies in the face of available evidence and doesn't have any sound logical basis. It's a statement of belief that is anti-science, in that the source of it is different from and opposed to science. If I agree to call Robert "Becky," and use pronouns that refer to women, that's just a matter of social convention. If I said that on a biological level Robert is indistinguishable from a woman, that would be false, but that's not what anyone believes.

 

[mmafan2000]

Radical right: wants to see family over the holidays

Radical left: wants to see families fined and jailed for getting together over the holidays.

And the radical left wants to destroy the nuclear family, as posted initially on BLM's website.

 

[grimballer]

Radical left cause it’s real and is present in many places of power and influence.

On the other hand Radical right is not a real threat. It’s just a boogeyman radical left uses to scare and mobilize their troops.

 

[WTF2008]

The problem with the “radical left” is that they don’t know they’re “radical left”. The line is getting pretty thin between the left and “radical left”.

The current labelists on the far left think that anyone that disagrees with one or more of their views is “radical right” or “white nationalists” or “nazis” and I guess vice versa.

All these new terms for people that disagree with something you believe in seem like media creations meant to divide people and create fighting sides as much as possible.

I guess it’s so us little guys can get angry at each other and defend whoever is on “our” side and agree with whatever shitty thing they do just because they’re on “our” side and forget/defend all the bullshit the big guys do.

 

[The_Renaissance]

The problem with the “radical left” is that they don’t know they’re “radical left”. The line is getting pretty thin between the left and “radical left”.

The current labelists on the far left think that anyone that disagrees with one or more of their views is “radical right” or “white nationalists” or “nazis” and I guess vice versa.

All these new terms for people that disagree with something you believe in seem like media creations meant to divide people and create fighting sides as much as possible.

I guess it’s so us little guys can get angry at each other and defend whoever is on “our” side and agree with whatever shitty thing they do just because they’re on “our” side and forget/defend all the bullshit the big guys do.

There's the problem, there doesn't seem to be such a thing as 'normal' Left anymore.

The entire premise of the Left in 2020 is to try and push boundaries to breaking point and to see how much further they can be pushed. If you even raise a concern about that, you're a white supremacist / radical right-winger. So there's no checkpoints within the Left anymore - you could be a fairly moderate Left wing person who thinks "hang on a second" when the Leftists come out with the next wild idea.......but you'd be afraid to challenge it. You'd just go along with it to be considered 'a good person'.

It's become a religious cult, basically. Easiest way to put it. The rhetoric, the ideology, the behaviour, the hierarchies, all scream of religious cult.

 

[1pedestrian]

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.