To a lot of young people, myself included. The authority, or at least the authority we interact with- is progressive. So something like a thin blue line flag is rejecting that authority. Also the Gadsden flag has always been anti-authority.
I didn’t say to everyone, I said to a lot of people that is the current dominant ideology from people in positions of authority that they interact with.
Yeah. To a lot of young, vulnerable people who are less minoritized, progressives feel like the authority. You’re told you’re privileged, but you don’t feel it. This is partially because we take our personal experiences for granted, but also because even the relatively privileged struggle. Some people suffer more from the system than others, but a ton of things suck for everyone.
Unfortunately, the promises of the right are a monkey’s paw at best, or a scam at worst. Even if the right succeeds, they usually make things worse for everyone in the process, even themselves.
Especially because average privilege accross a demographic says nothing of a given individuals privilege.
But I think that’s not the only reason people feel this way, but also because for the people we interact with they are the authority. Most of my teachers were progressive, anti-capitalist, and ERFs(I don’t know about trans exclusionary since they never talked about it)- but said ridiculous things like “men can’t get raped”. This might’ve been just my school, but especially amongst girls, anyone suspected of being “conservative” was bullied. I wasn’t conservative but was pretty argumentative, and I have someone email my school email thanking me for saying what they wanted to say but were too scared to.
Remember for a lot of people my age, early 20s and late teens, when we were growing up people who made funny memes(like from our perspectives Alex Jones or whoever) were being banned while the inverse wasn’t happening.
I went through a phase where I felt the exact same way. My upbringing was left wing and becoming more conservative felt like rebellion. I was never really that right wing, but I was convinced that conservatives must have some valid points. After all, how could half the country be wrong on almost everything?
Unfortunately for conservatives, I never stopped questioning, never stopped pushing ideas to their limits. In doing so, I independently came to many of the same left wing viewpoints I grew up with, only stronger and more resilient. I realized that my parents were actually right, while I was wrong.
More importantly, I realized that conservative ideas did make sense, but not at face value. Conservatives are inconsistent and contradictory because they aren’t expressing their motivations explicitly. They often aren’t aware of their actual reasoning, but there is logic behind their views. The logic is usually very cynical and cruel, dehumanizing people and valuing identity over principles.
I used to think somewhat like you, until I applied a critical lens to conservative ideas in the same way I had investigated familiar progressive ideas. Now I’m a trans woman who’s farther left than every elected representative in congress. I still believe in almost all of the leftist ideas I was raised with, only I’ve pushed them farther than my parents ever did.
Right now you’re critical of progressives, and often you spot valid flaws, but are you willing to continue? Are you willing to peer deeper into reality; to open your eyes to fundamental truths? That was my strategy, and it took me from naive progressive, to rebellious centrist, to the eventual woke queen I am today.
I continue to awaken to new truths, mostly because I like doing it. I like the feeling of discovery and understanding. Thanks to my efforts, I’ve found likely answers to humanity’s biggest questions, raised my base happiness levels from constantly suicidal to never hopeless, and became way smarter than I thought I’d ever be. I think most people can learn what I’ve learned if they apply themselves, but it’s still a tough journey. Are you willing to take it?
I appreciate you sharing, but I think you’re misunderstanding me and what I was saying. I am not conservative, nor am I progressive. My point was just that progressivism was the dominant ideology of authority in most of my upbringing. Being the authority ideology doesn’t inherently make it wrong, or its “designated opposition” right. I have a few fundamental values that are based(like I think deep down probably everyones) on my intuition and emotion. I then try to interpret how certain things align with those values. Its true that probably at least some of the basis for those values were initially rebelliousness- but that doesn’t exactly make them wrong. I also don’t know that I agree there is such a thing as a fundamental truth- but I’m curious what you are the likely answers to (and what are) humanity’s biggest questions?
No, you’re conservative. I don’t like labeling my beliefs either, but being pro cop and antiprogressive is conservative. In reality, self proclaimed American conservatives want to change society to be more hierarchical and unfair, not keep things as is. If you’re not applying pressure for reformation, selfish interests will cause backsliding. The battle will never end until humanity dies out. Good things require effort to maintain.
Another mistake you make is thinking progressives have more power than we do. The rich aren’t progressive. Companies pandering to diverse customers aren’t progressive, they’re just making money by expanding their customer base. The right screams about companies being woke, but the companies are often act more right wing than they would be if they were only chasing profits.
Social media companies don’t censor conservatives unfairly, instead they protect conservatives from the policies they implement to prevent brands from pulling advertising. The standards are higher for left wing causes in the mainstream media, as the rich people who own them are right wing. Accurate descriptions of reality in science and journalism tend to support progressives more than conservatives, with publications often introducing inaccuracies to prop up conservative positions.
My biggest problem when I thought like you was having an inaccurate view of left wingers as having power in society. Many agents that I thought were left wing actually weren’t, instead only supporting left wing causes for personal gain. Empirical observations are almost always in opposition to right wing plans for improving society. Exclusively right wing plans never make things better for the weak; never.
If you want fundamental truths and answers to our biggest questions, read my comment history. This comment is already long enough.
being pro cop and antiprogressive is conservative.
I am neither of those things. And it’s very condescending to assume you know what I am. Well it depends what “anti progressive” means, I support some progressive stances but oppose others.
If you’re not applying pressure for reformation
Again, you don’t know me.
The rich aren’t progressive. Companies pandering to diverse customers aren’t progressive
They may or may not be. I think it’s wrong to assume companies aren’t just made of people, and people may make some logical oversights of their beliefs to keep their standard of living and job.
Social media companies don’t censor conservatives unfairly, instead they protect conservatives from the policies they implement to prevent brands from pulling advertising.
Why would brands pull their advertising? No person sees an Amazon ad on something dumb and thinks that means Amazon endorses that belief. There are however certain organizations such as the ADL that pressure companies into pulling their ads.
Accurate descriptions of reality in science and journalism tend to support progressives more than conservatives, with publications often introducing inaccuracies to prop up conservative positions.
This is true. Progressivism has a basic moral value of utilitarianism. Conservatism basic moral values are religion and tradition. Of course one of those has more evidence for it.
Many agents that I thought were left wing actually weren’t, instead only supporting left wing causes for personal gain.
Well isn’t that a lot of those out of power too? After all, one of the biggest criticism of poor Trump voters was that they were voting against their interest. They weren’t voting for personal gain. Which would imply that at least some less conservative voters were convinced by that argument. Maybe no one votes in their interest, but at least conventional wisdom was the two wolves and a sheep saying.
Empirical observations are almost always in opposition to right wing plans for improving society.
You know, how you define improving society depends on your values. We probably agree on some parts of the definition and disagree on others.
Exclusively right wing plans never make things better for the weak; never.
That’s not to mention the definitions of right and left wing tend to depend on the person.
Governments, companies, organizations and identities seem to function as meta organisms on large scales, interested more in their own survival above all else. It’s an emergent phenomenon of many individuals, but so are all multicellular organisms. Even individual genes can work against the interests of the cells they exist in, moving themselves around in the code to avoid deletion. Companies are machines made of living organisms and shaped by evolutionary pressures. Their practices spread into new companies if they help the company continue its existence. That’s what life is, machines that secure the future existence of their mechanical processes.
People do see ads of products and associate that product with its corresponding content. That’s how ads are understood to work. It doesn’t matter what the person consciously thinks, advertising works mostly through unconscious associations. The ADL, an organization funded by genocidal nationalistic Israelis to garner goodwill from anti-hate activists, isn’t applying alien logic to advertisers. They’re applying the very logic advertisers use to design their ads in the first place.
Utilitarianism is an explicitly hedonistic ethical framework, but all other moral frameworks tie back into hedonism in some way. Kant’s categorical imperative, the Socratic inspired virtue theories used by Christian theologians for millenia, social contract theory, even the widespread golden rule. They all tie back into serving one’s own self interest if you follow their logic. It’s so implicit that it’s unavoidable. They all originate in what we think will bring us utility/pleasure/happiness/eudaimonia.
The craziest part is, we don’t even serve our own pleasure. Having kids usually makes people less happy, but we want to do it regardless. Our pleasure evolved to serve our genes, just like everything about us.
You asked about my answers to longstanding questions. I found the form of the good that Plato imagined: the evolutionary imperative. I also discovered that forms come from our neurology and aren’t inherent, so it’s more accurate to say that I found the likely answer to a high degree of certainty.
That’s ok though, I also realized that we cannot ever have certainty about anything based in reality, with all deductive reasoning being based on induction. I don’t need proof, only evidence. It only needs to be the best answer, and I can always end up being wrong. Proof doesn’t matter if one’s assumptions are wrong. Solipsism is unavoidable. Not even “I think, therefore I am” is accurate, as it assumes thinking requires an agent who thinks.
The Trump voters only voted for what they thought were their interests, it’s just that their understanding was inaccurate. It’s ok though, because even the rich and powerful people that support Trump were voting against their long-term interests.
The rich destabilize societies to gain more power by getting free market ideologues elected, pushing the workers to suffer, which leads them to radical ideolgies. The rich then prefer to avoid socialism, so they support radical right wing ideologies in the form of fascists like Trump. Unfortunately, fascists create more worker suffering, harm the economy, and create international conflict with other nations. The global rise in fascism and collapse of neoliberal policies has pushed the entire planet towards World War.
This sounds crazy, but look at what Trump did in the middle east to inflame the current conflict. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and killed their general in an unprovoked attack. This has made Iran pursue nukes and take a more hostile stance against US interests, as their economy suffered from sanctions and they got pushed further to the right. His reckless support of Israel led Israel to be more bold in their actions against Palestinians and confident of US support. Israel has nukes, and if the war with Iran continues to escalate, they might be used by a desperate Israel.
His support of Putin and weakening of alliances with Europe probably encouraged Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If Ukraine gets pushed too far west, Poland will likely put boots on the ground to prevent them from being easily invaded by Russia. Trump killing the Israel/Ukraine/border security funding bill makes it harder for Ukraine to remain strong against Russia, increasing the likelihood of EU direct intervention, and increasing the risk of nuclear war in Europe.
Trump’s useless trade war with China empowered hardliners in their government to be more hostile and nationalistic, increasing the probability of them invading Taiwan. If Taiwan gets invaded, the US might interfere militarily and risk escalating to a broader conflict, although nukes are less likely than the other conflicts.
Regardless of what values the rich may have, all this danger is not good from any perspective. Nobody wins in wars they need to fight in. The military industrial complex is fucked if the US gets nuked. The entire global economy has already been harmed by these conflicts, and even if no nuclear bombs are ever used, conventional bombs are already bad enough. Modern nations can’t be conquered by direct warfare, only destroyed.
Fascists are bad for everyone in the long run, and that’s what the GOP is. They aren’t regular conservatives like in the past, they’re against liberal democracy entirely. Bush wanted to use some elements of liberal democracy to enact conservative goals, but Trump broke from it completely. The entire Republican party has been purged of anyone who might stand against fascism, from Romney who will be gone by the end of the year, to Liz Cheney who got the boot in 2022. Even fascists like McCarthy can’t survive if they don’t follow every order Trump gives.
You’re right about me not knowing what you think you advocate for, but saying pro cop people have a point isn’t advocating for reform. I think cops need to exist to some extent, but I’m willing to defund them, prosecute them, and replace the entire system to reign them in. Pro cop people aren’t giving enough criticism to make any positive change, sorry.
I also should have said conservative instead of right wing. Conservative plans will never help the weak. Values and intentions don’t matter when the solution doesn’t work. Progressive plans may not work every time, but they are the only ones capable of working.
To a lot of young people, myself included. The authority, or at least the authority we interact with- is progressive. So something like a thin blue line flag is rejecting that authority. Also the Gadsden flag has always been anti-authority.
Removed by mod
Yeah?
deleted by creator
I didn’t say to everyone, I said to a lot of people that is the current dominant ideology from people in positions of authority that they interact with.
Yeah. To a lot of young, vulnerable people who are less minoritized, progressives feel like the authority. You’re told you’re privileged, but you don’t feel it. This is partially because we take our personal experiences for granted, but also because even the relatively privileged struggle. Some people suffer more from the system than others, but a ton of things suck for everyone.
Unfortunately, the promises of the right are a monkey’s paw at best, or a scam at worst. Even if the right succeeds, they usually make things worse for everyone in the process, even themselves.
Especially because average privilege accross a demographic says nothing of a given individuals privilege.
But I think that’s not the only reason people feel this way, but also because for the people we interact with they are the authority. Most of my teachers were progressive, anti-capitalist, and ERFs(I don’t know about trans exclusionary since they never talked about it)- but said ridiculous things like “men can’t get raped”. This might’ve been just my school, but especially amongst girls, anyone suspected of being “conservative” was bullied. I wasn’t conservative but was pretty argumentative, and I have someone email my school email thanking me for saying what they wanted to say but were too scared to.
Remember for a lot of people my age, early 20s and late teens, when we were growing up people who made funny memes(like from our perspectives Alex Jones or whoever) were being banned while the inverse wasn’t happening.
I went through a phase where I felt the exact same way. My upbringing was left wing and becoming more conservative felt like rebellion. I was never really that right wing, but I was convinced that conservatives must have some valid points. After all, how could half the country be wrong on almost everything?
Unfortunately for conservatives, I never stopped questioning, never stopped pushing ideas to their limits. In doing so, I independently came to many of the same left wing viewpoints I grew up with, only stronger and more resilient. I realized that my parents were actually right, while I was wrong.
More importantly, I realized that conservative ideas did make sense, but not at face value. Conservatives are inconsistent and contradictory because they aren’t expressing their motivations explicitly. They often aren’t aware of their actual reasoning, but there is logic behind their views. The logic is usually very cynical and cruel, dehumanizing people and valuing identity over principles.
I used to think somewhat like you, until I applied a critical lens to conservative ideas in the same way I had investigated familiar progressive ideas. Now I’m a trans woman who’s farther left than every elected representative in congress. I still believe in almost all of the leftist ideas I was raised with, only I’ve pushed them farther than my parents ever did.
Right now you’re critical of progressives, and often you spot valid flaws, but are you willing to continue? Are you willing to peer deeper into reality; to open your eyes to fundamental truths? That was my strategy, and it took me from naive progressive, to rebellious centrist, to the eventual woke queen I am today.
I continue to awaken to new truths, mostly because I like doing it. I like the feeling of discovery and understanding. Thanks to my efforts, I’ve found likely answers to humanity’s biggest questions, raised my base happiness levels from constantly suicidal to never hopeless, and became way smarter than I thought I’d ever be. I think most people can learn what I’ve learned if they apply themselves, but it’s still a tough journey. Are you willing to take it?
I appreciate you sharing, but I think you’re misunderstanding me and what I was saying. I am not conservative, nor am I progressive. My point was just that progressivism was the dominant ideology of authority in most of my upbringing. Being the authority ideology doesn’t inherently make it wrong, or its “designated opposition” right. I have a few fundamental values that are based(like I think deep down probably everyones) on my intuition and emotion. I then try to interpret how certain things align with those values. Its true that probably at least some of the basis for those values were initially rebelliousness- but that doesn’t exactly make them wrong. I also don’t know that I agree there is such a thing as a fundamental truth- but I’m curious what you are the likely answers to (and what are) humanity’s biggest questions?
No, you’re conservative. I don’t like labeling my beliefs either, but being pro cop and antiprogressive is conservative. In reality, self proclaimed American conservatives want to change society to be more hierarchical and unfair, not keep things as is. If you’re not applying pressure for reformation, selfish interests will cause backsliding. The battle will never end until humanity dies out. Good things require effort to maintain.
Another mistake you make is thinking progressives have more power than we do. The rich aren’t progressive. Companies pandering to diverse customers aren’t progressive, they’re just making money by expanding their customer base. The right screams about companies being woke, but the companies are often act more right wing than they would be if they were only chasing profits.
Social media companies don’t censor conservatives unfairly, instead they protect conservatives from the policies they implement to prevent brands from pulling advertising. The standards are higher for left wing causes in the mainstream media, as the rich people who own them are right wing. Accurate descriptions of reality in science and journalism tend to support progressives more than conservatives, with publications often introducing inaccuracies to prop up conservative positions.
My biggest problem when I thought like you was having an inaccurate view of left wingers as having power in society. Many agents that I thought were left wing actually weren’t, instead only supporting left wing causes for personal gain. Empirical observations are almost always in opposition to right wing plans for improving society. Exclusively right wing plans never make things better for the weak; never.
If you want fundamental truths and answers to our biggest questions, read my comment history. This comment is already long enough.
I am neither of those things. And it’s very condescending to assume you know what I am. Well it depends what “anti progressive” means, I support some progressive stances but oppose others.
Again, you don’t know me.
They may or may not be. I think it’s wrong to assume companies aren’t just made of people, and people may make some logical oversights of their beliefs to keep their standard of living and job.
Why would brands pull their advertising? No person sees an Amazon ad on something dumb and thinks that means Amazon endorses that belief. There are however certain organizations such as the ADL that pressure companies into pulling their ads.
This is true. Progressivism has a basic moral value of utilitarianism. Conservatism basic moral values are religion and tradition. Of course one of those has more evidence for it.
Well isn’t that a lot of those out of power too? After all, one of the biggest criticism of poor Trump voters was that they were voting against their interest. They weren’t voting for personal gain. Which would imply that at least some less conservative voters were convinced by that argument. Maybe no one votes in their interest, but at least conventional wisdom was the two wolves and a sheep saying.
You know, how you define improving society depends on your values. We probably agree on some parts of the definition and disagree on others.
That’s not to mention the definitions of right and left wing tend to depend on the person.
Governments, companies, organizations and identities seem to function as meta organisms on large scales, interested more in their own survival above all else. It’s an emergent phenomenon of many individuals, but so are all multicellular organisms. Even individual genes can work against the interests of the cells they exist in, moving themselves around in the code to avoid deletion. Companies are machines made of living organisms and shaped by evolutionary pressures. Their practices spread into new companies if they help the company continue its existence. That’s what life is, machines that secure the future existence of their mechanical processes.
People do see ads of products and associate that product with its corresponding content. That’s how ads are understood to work. It doesn’t matter what the person consciously thinks, advertising works mostly through unconscious associations. The ADL, an organization funded by genocidal nationalistic Israelis to garner goodwill from anti-hate activists, isn’t applying alien logic to advertisers. They’re applying the very logic advertisers use to design their ads in the first place.
Utilitarianism is an explicitly hedonistic ethical framework, but all other moral frameworks tie back into hedonism in some way. Kant’s categorical imperative, the Socratic inspired virtue theories used by Christian theologians for millenia, social contract theory, even the widespread golden rule. They all tie back into serving one’s own self interest if you follow their logic. It’s so implicit that it’s unavoidable. They all originate in what we think will bring us utility/pleasure/happiness/eudaimonia.
The craziest part is, we don’t even serve our own pleasure. Having kids usually makes people less happy, but we want to do it regardless. Our pleasure evolved to serve our genes, just like everything about us.
You asked about my answers to longstanding questions. I found the form of the good that Plato imagined: the evolutionary imperative. I also discovered that forms come from our neurology and aren’t inherent, so it’s more accurate to say that I found the likely answer to a high degree of certainty.
That’s ok though, I also realized that we cannot ever have certainty about anything based in reality, with all deductive reasoning being based on induction. I don’t need proof, only evidence. It only needs to be the best answer, and I can always end up being wrong. Proof doesn’t matter if one’s assumptions are wrong. Solipsism is unavoidable. Not even “I think, therefore I am” is accurate, as it assumes thinking requires an agent who thinks.
The Trump voters only voted for what they thought were their interests, it’s just that their understanding was inaccurate. It’s ok though, because even the rich and powerful people that support Trump were voting against their long-term interests.
The rich destabilize societies to gain more power by getting free market ideologues elected, pushing the workers to suffer, which leads them to radical ideolgies. The rich then prefer to avoid socialism, so they support radical right wing ideologies in the form of fascists like Trump. Unfortunately, fascists create more worker suffering, harm the economy, and create international conflict with other nations. The global rise in fascism and collapse of neoliberal policies has pushed the entire planet towards World War.
This sounds crazy, but look at what Trump did in the middle east to inflame the current conflict. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and killed their general in an unprovoked attack. This has made Iran pursue nukes and take a more hostile stance against US interests, as their economy suffered from sanctions and they got pushed further to the right. His reckless support of Israel led Israel to be more bold in their actions against Palestinians and confident of US support. Israel has nukes, and if the war with Iran continues to escalate, they might be used by a desperate Israel.
His support of Putin and weakening of alliances with Europe probably encouraged Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If Ukraine gets pushed too far west, Poland will likely put boots on the ground to prevent them from being easily invaded by Russia. Trump killing the Israel/Ukraine/border security funding bill makes it harder for Ukraine to remain strong against Russia, increasing the likelihood of EU direct intervention, and increasing the risk of nuclear war in Europe.
Trump’s useless trade war with China empowered hardliners in their government to be more hostile and nationalistic, increasing the probability of them invading Taiwan. If Taiwan gets invaded, the US might interfere militarily and risk escalating to a broader conflict, although nukes are less likely than the other conflicts.
Regardless of what values the rich may have, all this danger is not good from any perspective. Nobody wins in wars they need to fight in. The military industrial complex is fucked if the US gets nuked. The entire global economy has already been harmed by these conflicts, and even if no nuclear bombs are ever used, conventional bombs are already bad enough. Modern nations can’t be conquered by direct warfare, only destroyed.
Fascists are bad for everyone in the long run, and that’s what the GOP is. They aren’t regular conservatives like in the past, they’re against liberal democracy entirely. Bush wanted to use some elements of liberal democracy to enact conservative goals, but Trump broke from it completely. The entire Republican party has been purged of anyone who might stand against fascism, from Romney who will be gone by the end of the year, to Liz Cheney who got the boot in 2022. Even fascists like McCarthy can’t survive if they don’t follow every order Trump gives.
You’re right about me not knowing what you think you advocate for, but saying pro cop people have a point isn’t advocating for reform. I think cops need to exist to some extent, but I’m willing to defund them, prosecute them, and replace the entire system to reign them in. Pro cop people aren’t giving enough criticism to make any positive change, sorry.
I also should have said conservative instead of right wing. Conservative plans will never help the weak. Values and intentions don’t matter when the solution doesn’t work. Progressive plans may not work every time, but they are the only ones capable of working.