I’d call myself a liberal but not left wing
Yes. Signing up is not easy. Most people here can understand written instructions and have some basic technical knowledge. People who are not stupid tend to lean left.
Do you advocate seizing the means of production and are a worker? If not, then you are not a leftist.
You can be “left wing” without being a “leftist”. I wouldn’t classify them as the same, personally. Left wing really includes anyone left of center
Sounds like a liberal to me. Centrists always think they are leftists because of the guilt of supporting capitalism. You support social programs. You do not support any form of removing capitalism. You are not a leftist, you are a centrist.
I’m Independent, but cannot support Republicans anymore … so I guess I’m a Democrat that hates gun control.
if you go far enough left, you get your guns back. :)
Last time I took the political compass test, I was center-right, firmly in the libertarian quadrant, exactly in the sub-section labeled “libertarian”.
That means my political stances align 100% against the Republican party and authoritarianism in general.
deleted by creator
I think it’s generally useful to abandon the notions of the Political Compass. Rather than relying on online tests, ask yourself if you think public ownership should be the principle aspect of the economy, or private ownership, and that will tell you if you’re more left-wing or right-wing.
Im unaware of any political science program that would advocate for the Nolan Square at this point.
Yep, it’s all vibes-based and merely attempts to approximate ideologies while obscuring their real mechanisms. It adds confusion more than it clarifies.
By which country’s standards?
Most people everywhere are slightly left of centre*. Most leaders everywhere are slightly right of centre*.
*Not in the American sense. Y’all crazy.
Yes
For sure, left wing are most of what I see here, except for trolls and bots
If I needed a label, probably Progressive. I liked Biden’s platform and agreed we needed to try a centrist like him to see if it was possible to start working together again. I also believed he did at least as well as anyone could, and if his legacy hadn’t been torn to bits by turnip would have positioned the US well for decades to come. He could have shifted that Overton window, sowed the seeds that a more Progressive candidate could reap.
But if I try to articulate a common theme for my current beliefs, it is to invest in the future. I’m a strong believer in a good education for all as the foundation of our future. I’m inspired by the possibilities of science and technology. We need people to have the opportunity to strive, improve, and to dare, knowing we will catch them if they fall
Earlier in life I thought I was much more Conservative but the twisted thing is I now say the same things from a very different perspective.
- I’m a strong believer in family values: every family member deserves equal respect and human rights, every new parent deserves quality time with a new child without regard for work, every child deserves the best healthcare without regard for their parents income, every child deserves a top notch education and the resources to succeed at it, every elderly or disabled person deserves to have their needs met and continue a decent life.
- I believe in innovation and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. A solid education for all allows each person the opportunity to achieve their potential. A comprehensive safety net lets each person reach for the stars without fear, lets them dare to fail without perishing, allows them to learn from a failure and try again.
- I believe in self-sufficiency and independence. Every person deserves a basic income to survive without burdening anyone else. Every person needs healthcare sufficient to recover without losing their independence, their savings, or their loved ones. People who choose city life should be able to walk out their door with only what they carry, and get anywhere. Comprehensive well maintained infrastructure is the ultimate independence
- I believe in fiscal responsibility. Every investment to look toward the future, build a better society, a better environment, a better humanity
- I believe in capitalism. Competition is enabled by a legal framework facilitating fairness, equal opportunity, transparency. Capitalism maximizes potential in a free market regulated by politics for the long term benefit of the voter/consumer
deleted by creator
Anti-Conservative
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
- Frank Wilhoit
Thanks, Frank! Very eloquently put!
Yeah right wing opinions will just get you banned on most instances
The rules are usually really quite simple. Don’t be a dick and don’t spread hate. If “right wing opinions” can’t stay out of those simple rules, they’re not right wing opinions, they’re bigots and that has never and will never be okay.
Listen, there are assholes everywhere, and even mild centrists can be dicks and break the rules. We can speak about tendencies and generalizations if you like, but there are plenty of people who aren’t bigots who are giant flaming assholes on social media.
Apart from the Tankie Triad, i’d doubt right wing opinions would get you banned (i’m not against believe it if i saw some examples though).
Hate speech and promotion of oppressions that right wingers tend to consider as simple ‘opinions’ might though.
Maybe in certain communities? Some power tripping mods do exist. Likely they could be reported to the instance admins and possibly removed for such a scenario. It’s happened before in some extremely high profile cases.
Downvoting the admin of Midwest.social would get you banned though.
Fortunately there are communities such as !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com that help spread knowledge of such information across the Threadiverse.
This is the fediverse it’s full of new people, adventurers, change makers. The majority of people who would be interested in this platform will have a more progressive bent. So the majority of people here will be more accepting of liberal policies.
it’s full of new people,
Don’t be ridiculous. I’m not a new people. I’ve been a people for almost my whole life. I bet most of us have.
Not me, I’ve only been a person for the past couple years. Prior to that I was a caffeine-powered AI.
Just say yes
Quibble: Many here are explicitly leftist, in the a leftist-not-liberal sense, and will even use “liberal” derogatorily. So, progressive, yes, but liberal, not necessarily.
to make matters more fun, many ‘explicitly leftist’ lemmings are tankies (blind supporters of russia, china, north korea, etc), who are explicitly not leftist but authoritarians masquerading in the skinsuit of the people’s revolution.
From my perspective I think that that is very silly. I don’t care for purity tests, but what would I know? I’m just a dirty libertarian.
It isn’t a purity test, it’s a necessary accommodation of the fact that people in the US (and I say this as an American) think that the left ends at progressive liberalism, while everyone else in the world sees progressive liberalism as center-left at best because they acknowledge that ‘the left’ extends quite far past the bounds of Liberalism (the philosophy, not the political leaning), because Liberalism is about individualism and property rights but most people to the left of that are collectivist in some way shape or form.
Liberal policies are an actual thing, a thing that leftists frequently disagree with.
Libertarians are often placed on the right part of the left-right divide. The fact you’ve chosen the label libertarian instead of conservative is animated by the exact same “purity test” that you find so silly.
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler is an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler was an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
I’m libertarian because I believe in freedom of choice. I’m not a conservative because the only things I care about conserving are the oceans and the forests.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
You’re thinking of the political compass there, which has two axes, one being the economic one (left/right) and the other being the Authoritarian (top) vs Libertarian (bottom) axis.
But the left/right most people use is a one-dimensional system which puts everything on that one axis. It’s based on how the French parliament used to be set up between the radical left and the aristocratic right.
The point being, the two left/right axes aren’t equivalent. I personally also think in the political compass, that’s the system we learnt in school, so I’m unclear on what falls where on the basic left/right axis. But Wikipedia has this to say:
While communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, conservatism and reactionism are generally regarded as being on the right.[1] Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, being sometimes on the left (social liberalism) and other times on the right (conservative liberalism or classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are sometimes classified as centrists.
You’re about one “and I think healthcare is a human right” from being a progressive/dem soc.
I like the Democratic socialists. I don’t like it when they seize power that will be upsurped by the next administration in powerand used to oppress people.
You can’t be both a libertarian and pretend to care about parks and forests. Pick one.
It wouldn’t kill you to read
But based on your username, that may not be in your skill set
That’s not true. I’m pretty sure most people don’t 100% agree with The strictest definition of their chosen label.
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
you forgot to switch alts to argue with yourself
You seem very confused I edited a comment and it posted to itself. It’s the same fucking comment should I have deleted the tree and collapsed the thread?
I would like to throw out there that the ACLU is a libertarian organization that would likely line up with the majority of the beliefs of Lemmy users. With that said I understand most people aren’t using libertarian in its ‘correct’ meaning as the ACLU does.
Yea I tend to think than when someone identifies as a Libertarian they almost certainly don’t mean a civil libertarian, which is how the aclu actually identifies themselves.
We have grown from a roomful of civil libertarians to more than 4 million members, activists, and supporters across the country. The ACLU is now a nationwide organization with a 50-state network of staffed affiliate offices filing cases in both state and federal courts. We appear before the Supreme Court more than any other organization except the Department of Justice.
This is literally the only time the word libertarian appears in their own history https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history
I only know because I interned there and it’s something they talked about. Maybe it was always preceded with ‘civil’ I just don’t remember that as well. The big issue amongst the workers when I was there was that in principle they supported Citizens United, and most of the employees did not support it in practice.
Just adding my experience to the topic, not sure why I got down voted for it. I’m not trying to push anyone to be libertarian just pointing out other ways the definition can be used.
Neat, I appreciate your insight. Upvote from me and today I learned.
You were downvoted because you dared to question the group think. Bad terrible actions irredeemable actions. How could you dare to bring your face here again?. Shame unending unyielding shame. Feel it understand it. You deserve it. /S
Authoritarians are often exceedingly fragile.
Libertarian as the USA mean or the rest of the world mean?
As in the traditional meaning of the word
Thanks. I look forward to learning about libertarianism with and from you. Not saying I’ll agree, but that I look forward to learning more.
Personally myself, I’m a bit of a geoist and a bit of a minarchist. I would advise that if you are interested you should start reading, John Lock and David Henry Thoreaus essays on governent and from there branch out.
Good point, many think left = liberal = US democrats who are centrists at best from the international perspective. So no, most people on here probably aren’t actual leftists, but I’m guessing when they say they ‘lean left’ they mean US-liberal-not-conservative, not socialist or whatever.
Lefty Lemmy righty reddit
Slashers slashdot
Ehhh. Eh?
Lefty Lemmy. Liberal Reddit.
Seems more the take. Reddit has a small vocal conservative minority.
