You're viewing a single thread.
Putting people into boxes doesn't really help anyone.
People are more nuanced than that.
It's not about nuance. It's about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that's actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn't a white cishet man.
That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.
Even the hygiene example can be nuanced.
Is it that they don't trim their toe nails often, but shower daily?
Is it that their nose hairs are long, but their hair on top of their head is well kept?
Where does this black and white line get drawn?
Everyone from different cultures (micro and macro) will have different answers.
We can all be stuffed into boxes for one thing or another. But I don't think it's so black and white.
One problem with nuance is that it can be weaponized to pedantry, not that I am accusing you of doing this, but a common tactic I see among conservative talkers is to focus so much on nuance that they intentionally/inadvertently (depending on the person) avoid the topic all-together. It is clear what the person you are replying to is saying, and it is clear that nuance exists. It doesn't reinforce your point to point out that nuance exists in everything, of course it does.
That said, I warn you to look for occasions where nuance is meant to obscure the core ideas from being discussed.
Their point is that, in a time where a political party is actively banning books, pushing stochastic terrorism, and continues to put forth people who say and do despicable things openly, it is reasonable to reject all people who can't or won't stand up to these actions, under the assumption that the rejecter finds these actions despicable.
Or, put a simpler way, using a completely made up example. If I were to require a wheelchair to live, of course I won't date anyone in the "eliminate wheel chair ramps" party, and it would be silly for you to pretend not to be able to see my perspective in that.
Great response, and I see your point.
I agree that books shouldn't be banned, but also probably not all books belong in schools, but should still be purchasable (which I believe is the case you're referring to in Florida)
I don't agree with the coercion and censorship that took place during covid, which is why I would lean away from being left. That being said, women (and everyone else) should have full autonomy of their bodies, which is why I would lean away from being on the right.
Nuance can also be something that brings us together, because I think most of us do have some common ground somewhere.
I think you missed the point where I said "it's not about nuance."
I'm not claiming my examples don't have nuances, I'm claiming that many (most) people have things on which they won't compromise. Standards, if you will. Those standards may have nuance, but they remain uncompromising.
To use your examples, if "not trimming their toenails enough" is a deal breaker for someone, then the nuance of "but they shower ever day" doesn't matter.
Because it's not about nuance. It's about deal breakers.
Fair enough, it's not an issue if you think blanket statements are good enough to be deal breakers.
I just hope that kind of black and white way of thinking doesn't lead to any resentment, and leaves room for individualism.
Idk if you don’t think LGBTQ+ folks deserve equal rights or think that social programs are “too generous” I’m not really interested in how nuanced the rest of you is.
Not saying that’s your beliefs specifically. Just that enough of us are actively harmed by the results of conservative laws and governance that I’m not really interested in knowing the nuanced part of someone who supports those policies.
Of course everyone deserve equal rights, and yes, the social programs could be infinitely better if we put even more resources towards them.
However, with recent internet restrictions, censorship, and identity politics, we're also actively being harmed by the left.
That doesn't mean what the people on the right are doing is any good either, I'm just saying it's not good to lump everyone into these black and white categories. It creates the weird tribalism we see here.
Ah yes, the radical left rolling out programs like 5 eyes. The radical left that makes it legal for corporations to throw cameras everywhere and deploy facial tracking software. The left who deregulated everything till credit card companies are allowed to determine who can access their money and what you're allowed to spend it on. That radical left sure does love rolling out censorious police state stuff.
-5 eyes was started in 1946 by democrats
-im not sure what you're talking about with the cameras, but look at the UK, that surveillance state was started with 5 eyes (the "labour party")
-if money is the topic, the left wants to create a centralized digital currency to do exactly what you're talking about with credit cards
-censorious police state "stuff" happened during covid, perpetuated by the left
Remember net neutrality?
I'd like to point out though, that the right doesn't make great strides either, but I don't need to give examples of that to people in this thread.
A 2 party system is hot garbage, and it's about being as divisive as possible to pump up your side.
It's like a Coke vs Pepsi advertising war
Those parties aren't left wing...
If Democrats and the Labour party (socialist democrat) aren't left, then what is?
the Democrats are a primary party in a military cult empire that indoctrinates children with flag rites and coups every government that dares to call itself socialist. I'm guessing you're part of that military cult and thus don't understand how insane it seems from the outside.
There are left elements, that sandy man seems to flirt with Democratic socialism, although not very strongly. It doesn't seem like he has much power though.
Labor in the UK has thoroughly remade itself after Thatcher with the new labour movement which distanced themselves from their unionist and socialist roots. They now don't have any particularly leftist policies, although they are less right than the Tories obviously.
In Australia labor did a similar thing after the USA couped our only elected socialist government and replaced the labour leader with a CIA groomed dude.
The right is utterly ascendant in global politics and has been since the rise of neoliberal economics under Reagan and Thatcher. That power is beginning to wane, but don't confuse being left of "we should hunt the homeless for sport" with being a leftist government. Leftism isn't when shouting slurs gets you tutted at, it's Democratic businesses and worker owned collectives, nationalised infrastructure, anti imperialism, open boarders, welfare above the poverty line, universal recognition of human dignity etc.
In Australia the most mainstream leftist party would be the greens who hold at most 1 to 3 seats out of 150 regularly. Similarly in the UK I am given to understand. There are more radical parties but they're even more marginalised.
Hah "military cult empire" - that's a great name for the people/parties you're referring to.
The UK's labour party did all of that reforming in the mid nineties though, but I see what you're trying to get at with the coup's and neoliberal economic movements.
I'd really like to see what you described (the definition you gave for actually being "left") - in action. Unfortunately, democracies are inherently not very secure (tech may be able to solve some of this), because of other countries and bad actors. Open borders would make this even harder.
Would there even be a government in this situation? Or would this be more akin to a socialist technocracy?
Do you have any examples of any that have done it yet? Without centralizing any sort of power?
Permanently Deleted
Depends. I'd say racism is a great box to put people into.
What does being conservative have to do with being racist?
Conservatism by definition is thinking "Things are good right now, let's not change anything" or even worse: "Things were better before, let's go back to that".
The issue is "better for who"? Women, queer people, POC, working class people were NOT ok. Implicitly you can see that conservatism is bigoted by (at a minimum) ignoring or misrepresenting the realities of people they don't care about. It's just that lately, more and more conservatives are explicit about it and showing their true colors, but the philosophical underpinnings are the same.
It's bad to under-represnt issues. But it's also bad to over-represent issues. The right answer is almost always in the middle.
The stuff you see in the news is carefully selected to show what makes people the most upset, that way it gets the most clicks.
In the past, women were subservient to men, black people were slaves, and being queer wasn't even allowed. Nowadays, things have improved a huge amount. There are still problems, but nothing like the past.
You are clearly not a victim of these issues and the situation is so alien to you that apparently the only way for you to relate to them is via the news. Violence and prejudice are things that happen to "other people".
Real people are suffering real oppression every day. Some in a small almost invisible way and others live in permanent fear of violence because of who they are.
That things were worse in the past is no reason to stop progress. And things did get better because people fought for them, often to death.
I hope you are arguing in good faith and have the moral strength to accept you may be blind to some realities and reconsider your beliefs.
Are you joking?
lol only one of the cleanest 1:1 correlations there ever was.
😕 Oh, buddy...
The meme has the conservative saying they’re a conservative though, so they put themselves in the box. There’s not much nuance to that.
This meme wasn't made by a conservative though. OP put them in the box.
Not really: the meme is mocking people who say they can't find dates because they are conservative, like these ones (opinion piece but cites sources). So it's just aimed at people who already "put themselves in boxes". If they didn't the whole meme falls apart, since it's based on a "discrimination" and you have to be aware of what about you is being "discriminated" to complain about it.