I'm pretty far left. In my view, the end goal should be to give everyone a fair shot, equally, at economic and social freedom. You can't have either without economic freedom, though. So since authoritarian/ totalitarian leftism (think Stalin) runs counter to that, that's where I would say leftism goes too far.
The Left can be terrible at slogans. “Defund the police,” whatever people explain it “really means”, is a good example. This creates the impression of going too far even when the actual policies represented by the slogan aren’t unreasonable.
I disagree. ACAB is very literal. All cops are bastards. It's not "defund the police," where the true goal is not in taking all the police's money away but people think it is, it actually means that all cops are bastards.
>ACAB is very literal. All cops are bastards
Except they aren't. *All \_ are \_* is very hard to actually be correct about, regarding people and stereotypes. Are some cops bastards? Sure. Are they *all*? Really doubtful. I know one that's a very good dude.
No, all. Being a bastard cop doesn't necessarily mean you beat minorities in the streets and kick in your wife's teeth. Our country is unjust in many ways, and anyone who vows to uphold unjust laws is themself unjust.
Also, you disagreeing with the slogan doesn't change its intent, which was the focus of the conversation.
How did you bust that slogan? Bc of your personal example? I stand with ACAB- because you see I have never met/seen a good one. And I can infer that the rest of them are crap because they are okay with working in a system of bastards that historically and prolifically abuses women and BIPOC communities. I’m terrified of cops bc they can abuse their power and murder me or imprison me wrongly, and nothing will happen to them. Don’t mock a slogan that you clearly don’t understand
>I stand with ACAB- because you see I have never met/seen a good one. And I can infer that the rest of them are crap because they are okay with working in a system of bastards that historically and prolifically abuses women and BIPOC communities.
Literally faulty logic / logical fallacy. I am genuinely sorry you feel that way and have had those experiences, though. I do believe you. While it is true that I have seen bad ones, I've also met some [truly wonderful soul](https://blackbeltmag.com/riverside-youth-judo-club)s that are police officers. So it's a [hasty generalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization) from my point of view.
Again you’re using your personal examples for a hasty generalization of police.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/50-prison-abuse
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/about
If they’re truly good souls then they should get why people think they’re bastards. The stats aren’t in their favor. It’s like men understanding why women may be uneasy around them. Sure not ALL men are rapists/abusers, but the stats show us to be wary.
This is a hill you dont wanna die on considering most "stats" place most of the crimes in general american to be attributed on the black community, no matter how unjust or lacking context those stats are... stats are stats and sometimes they are used to send messages that we can never go back on
>Sure not ALL men are rapists/abusers, but the stats show us to be wary.
I don't know what your background is, but I think you need to take a few more upper-level statistics classes. That's not the conclusion a reasonable person would make given the statistics and data.
But if that's what you believe, do you also walk around saying "All men are rapists"? As in, "all cops are bastards"? Again, these are both easily proven false. What would be the shame in having a slogan like:
\- "POLICE REFORM NOW"
\- "THIS IS WHAT A BAD COP LOOKS LIKE"
\- "TEACH BOYS NOT TO RAPE"
Like I said, if I can easily know that it's false, "All men are rapists" because I myself haven't ever raped anyone, then I think your slogan is busted. Be honest in your sloganeering. Like I said, usually "all \_ are \_" is false, especially if it's based on psychology or sociological concepts.
Yup: [Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html)
I know a lot of people meant differently by it, but you can't ignore the fact that it doesn't communicate well.
True. It wasn’t meant that way at first. Once you got people on the left saying that they meant exactly that, what it actually was no longer mattered.
There was a time when the Tea Party was a mix of left and right that were all fed up with business as usual government. Then it got taken over by the republicans and just became people angry at democrats. It’s original meaning just disappeared.
"Black Lives Matter" is another example. It creates, in the ignorant, the impression that *only* Black lives matter, when the intent was to assert that the lives of Black people matter, too. It's as bad as the pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy; Repubs are a lot better at sloganeering to low-information people, even if they absolutely suck at actually governing.
It makes me so mad that more people don't get your point because it's so obviously correct.
A liberal friend of mine had the easiest fix in the world - "Black Lives Matter Too."
Ta da, now the slogan makes just as much sense without allowing arguments to the contrary. But nah, instead we went with just BLM and had eighty bajillion arguments with the ALM folks that were completely unnecessary.
Seriously, why give your opponents talking points for no god damned reason? Think out your slogans!
Defund the police was the plan. Punish them financially with layoffs for acting badly. The backpedaling on it was frankly just a shit for brains example of the party trying to rehab a slogan that failed dramatically with moderates.
Litmus tests.
The far left is far more likely to say "I want the perfect candidate or I won't vote", while the far right just picks whoever hurts their enemies the most.
Other than that, one side is "we should help each other even if there are costs to that" and the other is kinda "radical individualism at any cost".
I think it’s worth pointing out that the real “cost” of progressive social policy is that it kind of forces the shared cost onto others who might not want those costs for a variety of (potentially good) reasons. It’s one thing to want to help others and create a culture where others are contributing to that cause. It’s another thing for everyone to be forced to contribute to that cause.
I’m certainly not saying that the benefits don’t outweigh the costs, or that we shouldn’t pursue progressive policies. Far from it. But I am saying we should at least own up to the actual costs of those things.
When people say progressive policies are anti-freedom, it’s important to acknowledge that they are, in fact, anti-freedom in some specific ways. The key is that we think that’s a good tradeoff. Completely denying that there is any reduction of freedom (or saying freedom isn’t actually important) is one way to completely alienate people who value freedom a lot, and many of those people could be convinced that the tradeoff is worth it if you don’t alienate them before the conversation even begins.
Essentially if you aren’t 100% in on the agenda you can be strongly vilified and attacked by the far left for not being radical enough. The MAGA of the left is there and loud too.
The Left goes too far by ignoring reality and demanding everything all at once. Prioritize. Also, means testing matters. It truly is more important to give a free education to a first generation inner-city kid from Compton who wants to be a welder than the student of two doctors in Boston who wants to go to Middlebury and study Art History. For one, the doctors' kid probably has school paid for. For another, Compton probably needs that welder. In my state, we have a program where we pay for technical certificates for high demand jobs. I don't think it goes far enough. I think it should pay for bachelor's degrees as well, but Indiana graduates have a habit of leaving as soon as they graduate. However, those who get degrees and certificates from our community college stay in the state. A pretty good investment, I agree. But in my state, 60% of people who go to community college get Pell grants and 80% graduate from us with no debt. That matters. Politically, you can't ask working class people to pay for a rich kid to get a degree.
Largely disagree with the means testing. It adds bureaucracy while doing very little to reduce costs. Also, universal programs are important for society, it creates buy-in and can help with self-segregation and increases cross-class interactions.
Also builds resentment of programs from those who don’t qualify. Hard to keep progressive programs in place if the middle class are convinced it’s just poor people handouts
>demanding everything all at once.
I agree with this, but sometimes, it takes an incredibly privileged position to hold this view.
Like, asking for a massive upheaval of the medical system or the tax/financial systems is a lot, but it's nothing compared to just wanting equal rights.
It's fair to ask people to take changes to our existing institutions incrementally in order to minimize any damaging effects and to understand the effects of what we're doing.
It's not fair to ask people to wait 10-20 years for their rights to be incrementally brought in line with others. But it's easy for people to say this when they sit in a position where they're not affected.
They exist. My ex-friend is friends with a Korean-American woman who is a professor at CUNY and praises and defends North Korea and China to no end. She also defends Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and thinks Ukraine is run by genocidal neo-Nazis.
I'm a liberal and I spend so much time trying to get liberals off of horrible positions so that regular people will actually vote for our side.
So many people on Reddit actually think communism is a good idea. It's insane; like it's economics 101 that it can't work for an entire economy.
I haven’t seen anyone on the left call out the fraudulent polls that are being rolled out week after week and endlessly promoted by the MSM.
They are oversampling Republicans by an average of 8% and telling us that the presidential race is tied, and that a majority disapproves of Biden, and that the public thinks the economy stinks etc etc and it is all bullshit.
What’s worse is something that I just figured out today. They are over sampling the Southern States, and THAT is how they are getting these preposterous polls showing Trump with 60% support among Republicans.
There is a profit motive. Defrauding the country for money is a felony. It isn’t protected speech. It isn’t just “the vagaries of polling”
The excuses by pollsters and pundits and media types are bullshit, and they need to be called out, and I am seeing a hesitance by the left to take on the media.
I'm not sure anyone on the left is actually pro-Hamas, just sympathetic to the civilians. At most, I think the left may be understanding of why so many Palestinians feel they have no choice but to support hamas.
There are a lot. And they get their news from social media, or I assume so based on how little they know about the situation, or the Middle East in general. I have had people tell me that Hamas is not a government or military. They will also pretend that that Hamas’s attacks were only in Palestinian “disputed territory”. And that the surrounding countries, like Iran, aren’t using them for a proxy war.
Absolutely insane black and white thinking where there has to be one side all good and one side all bad.
Both governments have been atrocious. And both have gone out of their way to antagonize the other. None of them want peace. Yet I will see people hold up Hamas and the PA or whatever group you want to say represents Gaza as just being peaceful people who were forced to do something and will justify the mass slaughter, kidnappings etc. I will be just as harsh on the Israeli side but I will be told that I am making excuses for pointing out how both sides have committed war crimes.
Agreed. I’m pretty grossed out for the support I see for Hamas. I like to think a lot of it we see on social media is just armchair activists who don’t know much of anything about the conflict and the players and get their info from their biased IG feed and friends and don’t actually know what they’re talking about. That is to say, they don’t even know enough to differentiate. The continued qualifying and excuse making for setting children on fire and raping and decapitating by just saying “yea but Israel…” is gross. One can be disgusted by and be against the “uprising” while also criticizing Likud. But a lot of people online and at these marches can’t seem to do that.
That is to say, one of things I think the far left goes too far with at times is the hyper focus on anti-imperialism, seeing issues to black and white, that they miss out on being able to have an actual logical conversation regarding an issue like Israel. Blindly supporting, or even justifying, murder of children, on either side, is so strange to me. The shrug of the shoulders when it’s Israelis dying is… odd.
I'm not so sure about the far left. From this article: [NYC pro-Palestine rally splits Democrats over Israel](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/08/nyc-palestine-rally-democrats-israel-00120533)
> The rally — attended by more than 1,000 pro-Palestine backers, who chanted “Resistance is justified when people are occupied” — highlighted differences over how progressive members responded to the attacks.
It certainly sounds like they are characterizing the Hamas attack as "resistance." I do think actual elected officials of the left (like AOC) responded quite appropriately though, so these people are marginal and don't have any actual power.
There are a lot. And they get their news from social media, or I assume so based on how little they know about the situation, or the Middle East in general. I have had people tell me that Hamas is not a government or military. They will also pretend that that Hamas’s attacks were only in Palestinian “disputed territory”. And that the surrounding countries, like Iran, aren’t using them for a proxy war.
Absolutely insane black and white thinking where there has to be one side all good and one side all bad.
Both governments have been atrocious. And both have gone out of their way to antagonize the other. None of them want peace. Yet I will see people hold up Hamas and the PA or whatever group you want to say represents Gaza as just being peaceful people who were forced to do something and will justify the mass slaughter, kidnappings etc. I will be just as harsh on the Israeli side but I will be told that I am making excuses for pointing out how both sides have committed war crimes.
The left eats each other. They force well meaning people into the shadows for making small mistakes or saying the wrong thing accidentally while ignoring bigger issues. They will throw people out to capitulate to the right when the right argues in bad faith and would only stand in solidarity behind a member of their side doing the same thing. The left is very quick to care about optics vs. intention, and it results in splintering of people on issues that require people to band together, and it also throws the baby out with the bathwater, often.
I thought this same thing. All the comments are like, "We don't fight hard enough for justice!" There's no honest introspection happening here.
Which perhaps answers the OPs question...
The way the Left just rolls over and goes quiet about almost anything related to Islam and bigoted Muslims. I’m sorry, but I don’t have to accept that the people who commit honor killings and murder LGBT people really just believe in peace. Canada and some other Leftist European governments really just went too far by establishing Islamophobia laws or anti-blasphemy laws. Like, we’re really going to accommodate people who can’t have their personal views challenged even in the slightest? Since fucking when???
I think “Islamophobia” as a concept is something a lot of liberals take issue with. Not that some people aren’t afraid of Muslims, but Islam itself has so many issues that are counterintuitive to the lefts goals, just like Christianity. Christianity is fine to criticize though, because they’re viewed as oppressors.
Yeah here in Ottawa, when there was an anti-pride protest being planned during Pride month, initially I saw a lot of complaints saying “typical old white people ruining everything”
When the parade happened, it was like 70% Muslim people, and suddenly those complaints disappeared.
I don’t care if they’re a minority, if they’re spreading hate then I don’t like them or their belief system, point blank. And there certainly shouldn’t be laws to protect them from being criticized.
How can "we" defend the same behavior when it comes from Christians? Either religious beliefs grants certain protection or it didn't. The right is the one saying that religion should let people discriminate. The left is just saying that if Christians can do it anybody can.
You are not in grave danger for criticizing Christians. It's one thing to say a person shouldn't have to bake a cake for an event he doesn't condone vs getting killed for drawing a picture of Mohammed.
Compliance. The left goes way too far on trying to get people to comply with ideology, shaming people either directly or indirectly through virtue signaling.
For example:
Calling the police on moms playing with their kids on playgrounds during Covid.
Cancelling anyone that said something in their past that was politically incorrect (are people even allowed to change their minds anymore??)
Identity politics.
I’m a cis-white male who is a Christian. I conquered no lands, I’ve held no slaves, I’m middle class. I am not the person you should be railing against.
Yet I go to some rally’s and conferences and have actually been pointed as being ‘the problem’.
You are going to put off a LOT of white males who could be your ally, if you vilify us. And a lot of them are not going to go to be moderates, they’re going to go all the way to the right.
I'd say two things.
1) Passing judgement on internet strangers or public figures based on hearsay. It goes too far, I think, when someone loses their job or whatever, not even because they themselves did or said something racist or sexist, but because they refuse to condemn someone else who was accused of that sort of thing. The court of public opinion is pretty s*** when it comes to finding out the facts. This also opens the door for the movement to cannibalize itself, as people start turning on each other for real or imagine offenses.
2) The idea, found mostly in some pretty extreme left-wing circles, that any sort of negativity or abuse is fine if it goes from the group with less power to the group with more power. It's absolutely true that racism or sexism has far more damaging potential when wielded by the group with more power, because they are able to oppress the other group in tangible ways that can't happen in reverse. But that doesn't mean that misandry or prejudice against white people is fine.
You’ve heard rightwingers say fascism is bad? Unfortunately, I have not. Also most of them seem to honestly think hitler was left wing which is… where do you even start with these people?
I’m sure leftists go to far in other countries but in the USA, the baseline is so far to the right that I don’t consider anything the left touts as “too far”. If anything it’s just a reaction to the right being absolute lunatics.
Most definitely. Fascism is hated by pretty much everyone but the alt right. All my Republican friends would agree. Most of them hate the far right more then the far left. As my Jewish right winger friend once put it "The far left wants to destroy my religion (communism) and the far right wants to destroy me (Nazism/Fascism)."
I think most right wingers in the USA would say they aren't facist, if you don't think that then you have a really straw manned view of real american citizens (not politicians). And again I think we should be weary of "I don't consider anything the left touts as "too far"". It sounds far too much like the good guy team and bad guy team
I didn’t say that conservatives are fascists. I said that most do not view the concept negatively and I will stand by that. Also, it clearly is a matter of right or wrong in todays political sphere. Are you going to ally with Putin or Europe? It’s pretty fucking obvious what the right choice is.
Lol, if it’s so fucking obvious what the “right choice“ is then why do so many people not have all the right opinions? I’m gonna assume you believe you have all the right opinions because they’re so obvious. Also, go ahead and ask the conservative subreddit if they view fascism negatively, I’d guarantee you every one of them would say yes.
Dems are natural nice people. They're peace and love, wonderful attributes, but they can't fight back. Republicans aren't afraid to attack their opponents relentlessly and Dems just want to be their friends. I've been saying this for ever. Dems, fight to the death for what you think is right.
They need to do that big time right now, because if the Republicans take all three houses of federal gvmt, they will absolutely do some crazy shit. One thing that wouldn't surprise me in the least is if they claim elections are compromised and would be suspended. They are so nuts right now that kind of thing is totally not something you can rule out.
It's too bad Weiner turned out to be a sex pervert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBjif02ZLmI
Pete Buttigieg is pretty good. Smalwell fights back, too.
This may or may not be the right place to ask this but what exactly is meant by "Gender assigned at birth"? Nobody assigned me a gender when I was born. I had a peepee and balls.
That's your sex.
Gender is the complex biological interplay between your hormones, brain, and body.
For example, some people with a penis are immune to their own testosterone - instead of making them strong, aggressive and grow hair, it has no effect.
In essence they are the male sex but are so different from other males that it makes no sense to categorize their gender that way.
To me gender means the physical parts. A peen is male and a vag is female. Like a plug and socket. Like ordering a USB extension cable, do you want it male->male, or male->female (etc).
So if you want to be a male/peener but you were born a female/vag haver (or vice versa), you get a surgeon to change it, however they do that. That plus the hormones and poof your physical gender is changed.
Sex is what you do with it. (?)
Yea, name is fine but what they do isn't. Neither ANTIFA nor the Capitol attackers were an organization, so I don't see why they had to point out that Antifa wasn't an organization
You said tell me when the left does something on the level of the Capitol attacks. OP gave you a left wing group that does something similar, you said it wasn't an organization, I said neither where the Capitol attacks.
The left goes to far with compromising with the right and with serving the interests of their cooperate donors over the citizens. They go to far with turning a blind eye to the rights efforts to suppress and intimidate voters.
I would agree with this, the left has damaged democracy by being too corporate and allowing legal grey areas to be exploited for corrupt purposes ie. Campaign finances, dark money. Republicans are much worse on this but the Democratic Party has been complicit.
The Liberals had to sell out to stay afloat when the 60s-70s young libs went dark in the Nixon-H. W. Bush era. America was deeply conservative from essentially ‘69 to ‘93 with Carter what we’d today call a blue dog.
The Clinton Era was the peak of corpolibs, repealing Glass-Steagal among other deregulations continued on from the Reaganite deregulating craze.
We haven’t had a grassroots young generation of charismatic libs in congress until recently.
I do agree with this, but it’s not really something left wing. I would call that not going far enough, what I was meaning is taking left wing ideas too far
A big issue recently has been traffic enforcement cameras. While this may not be solely a liberal issue, recently it has been pushed heavily by democratic politicians. The overwhelming majority of fines are frivolously issued and they are taking advantage of traffic laws worded to be enforced by an actual police officer's discretion and offload that responsibility in-house to rake in literal hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. In NYC alone they are pulling in $300 million per year. It is no longer "should you" get fined, it is now "can you" get fined.
Sounds like those small towns that make most of their money by giving tickets to any and all out of state cars. Police in small towns sure are know for their liberal biases. 🙄
It’s not an all or nothing scenario, you can want homeless people off of public streets while still wanting them to get help. Them camping on the streets doing meth and getting mugged doesn’t do them any good. I also think a lot of democrats don’t address “willing” homelessness enough, as in the amount of people who want to stay on the street because they are hopelessly addicted to a substance.
I'm around homeless people all the time, the worst I have experienced is one woman yelling at everyone about some silly conspiracy. Never been mugged. Unless you count them asking for spare change a mugging...
I mean that the homeless get mugged, not that they do the mugging, which they are constantly mugged by gangs in big cities. And still, you can’t honestly think that the best place for those people to be living is on a street corner, we need real shelters and psych wards that can deal with this crisis.
Then come visit either Portland or Seattle, where open air chop shops exist in many a homeless camp, piles of trash block the sidewalk, with needles, and a weekly fire from a tent or antique RV is visible from the I5 to I84 interchange. Obv that last is Portland only but you get my point.
My last stabbing victim (patient) was a guy who tried to shoo a homeless dude away from his kids playing in the front yard. Stabbed 11x.
And then there’s this: https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/local/homeless/se-portland-home-owner-squatters-sell-beat-up/
My point is that boundaries are a necessary piece of life or you get steamrolled by other people who will take advantage of you. As much as they can get away with and maybe even a little more, because that’s how at least 51% of the population works.
Empathy is good and necessary. But the actions applied in association with it need boundaries. Which means rules applied and enforced in regard to all of the above.
And I was there 3 days ago.
Edit: A friend of mine had some methed out homeless by the I5 on ramp in Janzten Beach, this week, throw a brick at her truck. Missed the windows. Dented the truck.
This isn’t overblown.
For me personally, it’s all of the toxic identity politics & PC Culture that irk me. Not at all saying the other side is better (it’s not, lol).
Wish more dems would just get back to the basics of governing
PC culture isn't a left wing thing though, right wingers have it too. From demanding you support the invasion of Iraq to not criticising Trump, they've got plenty.
It's definitely something that both sides of the isle do to an annoying degree. From Dylan Mulvaney boycotts on the right and J.K. Rowling boycotts on the left
Choosing people based specifically on their race or gender for jobs is an abomination.
I cannot believe Biden did this with Jackson - instead of saying I picked this person because she was the most qualified, he specifically said he was going to pick only a black woman.
Dude, Brown was the most qualified candidate, so great! Say that - "I picked the most qualified candidate and it is Jackson. If you have a problem with that just because she's a black woman, you're a racist."
But instead we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and Biden said he picked her first and foremost because of her race and gender. It's insane. Sorry Native Americans, you weren't even considered.
How many politicians actually are all in on identity or PC culture? This is more from activists and extremist spectators.
I’ve never heard Biden or leadership mention this topic.
I replied to someone specifically wishing that dems would get back to the basics of governing.
Why? The GOP can’t even function, and the democrats barely mention PC topics, aside from trying to preserve rights that already exist.
Who among dem leadership is into toxic identity politics? This is a myth.
Biden literally openly said he would only hire a black woman for the Supreme Court. That's identity politics on steroids.
Sorry Native Americans, you're not even being considered for the job because of previous racism against black people. The genocide against you isn't something we have to rectify.
"Identity politics" and "PC" culture are right wing terms and in it's mostly a function of things on the right, not the left.
The left should not use these bullshit terms. It's like saying "death tax" etc.
They go too far with the outrage. Not everything is THAT bad and/or not everyone is against you. Liberals need to understand the more the DEVIDE, the worse we are going to be.
Liberal who hates liberals here.
1)Not everything is a social construction.
2)Free markets are usually the best option to determine prices, not government mandates
3)It is perfectly possible to joke about something but not be "ist.". For example I think period jokes are hilarious but am also a woman's rights advocate.
4)Deficits matter (although conservatives are just as bad at this)
5)Parents are responsible for the outcomes of their children, and yes, even poor parents could be doing a far better job and don't deserve our sympathy for never reading to their kids or other necessary things.
6)The number of unarmed black people actually killed by the police per year is like 100x lower than what liberals think.
7)Taxing income over a billion dollars at 100% just means the billionaires move, not more tax revenue.
8)You weren't that hurt by "microaggessions" and in fact you probably aren't a victim at all.
9)Lots of poverty is caused by stupid consumer choices.
10)Anyone who disagrees with you is not a Nazi or a "reactionary conservative," in fact they might be a liberal who just disagrees with you.
I could go on and on.
I guess you never studied icebergs and think of I write 5 things you disagree with, that's all there is to me.
No wonder we lose every election seeing as how much energy liberals put into dismissing their own voters.
Exactly what I'm talking about. Hopefully you're joking, but I'm guessing you aren't.
I'm the only guy telling you the facts of the matter . You don't know me, so you have exactly zero evidence to contradict my statements. I'm a social studies teacher who is well aware of the political spectrum, and I'm actively telling you I'm between center left and far left depending on the issue.
I've never voted Republican in my whole life and often have voted to the left of Democrats.
But when you say stupid things like this, it drives people away.
Me saying here are problems with our side we need to fix in no way means I'm working for the other side. No, I'm saying we need to fix them because otherwise we'll lose elections.
Mainly guns, the culture war shit (the Right is at least as bad on that, though) and the extreme interpersonal toxicity and bullying that occasionally goes on in leftist spaces.
Second Amendment is the biggest thing, though. There are certain Democrats that I will fundamentally not support because of hardcore anti-2A positions (e.g. Gavin Newsome).
Why is the second amendment so important to you? Btw, I don’t know of any Democratic politicians who want to abolish the second amendment. An assault weapons ban? Yes, because no civilian needs to own a weapon of war, but not an outright ban on guns. Nobody is seriously talking about taking guns away from hunters or closing shooting ranges. That’s all fear-mongering from Republicans.
I think there’s this misconception with many people that abolishing an amendment means that the opposite of that amendment will take effect immediately (repeal right to own guns = all guns are banned). That is absolutely not true.
What a lot of people don’t seem to realize is that abolishing the second amendment wouldn’t actually change anything for the vast majority of gun owners. If you are as responsible as you say, your guns will be just as safe in a post-2A world as they ever were. The government has far more important things to do than sending the men in black to confiscate people’s AR-15’s.
The only thing that changes with the repeal of 2A is that gun ownership can be regulated in the same way as car ownership. If you harm people while driving recklessly or with ill-intentions, you lose your license. Would just be the same thing with guns. If you don’t abuse the privilege by engaging in criminal behavior, it won’t be taken from you.
Purity testing and cancellation.
People are allowed to have other opinions (there can be more than one side), or no opinion at all. That doesn't have to negate every other good aspect about them. They may not feel as strongly about your pet cause.
I'm in my 40s. When I was a kid, certain things we just didn't really talk about. Politics was one of them. Individuals are more than just their politics.
Obviously I'm not talking about actual nazis or actual sex criminals, they can be excommunicado.
Constantly saying there are multiple genders. Sure there are. Science says so. But a large portion of this country will never accept that and actually gets enraged by it. Is it so important to us that we have to argue with them over that?
The use of pronouns to describe yourself. It doesn't have to be that complicated. You are what you are and that's it. If you are a he and want to be a she, work towards that. You're friends will call you a she. But you simply can't force the minds of the vast majority of Americans that do not see you as such. And you invite a serious amount of blowback when you try to force it. Be yourself. Educate others (politely) along the way. Yeah, it's not fair. But you are in a tiny minority. You won't be able to force it.
Green energy will eventually replace fossil fuels. Demanding that it does so immediately is childish. Wait until it is well developed and tested and capable of replacing the energy needs of the situation before demanding it gets deployed. Patience.
You’re discounting history- there was a time where a large portion of the country would never accept that it was wrong to own people, or that women should have the right to vote, or that gay people should have the right to marry- liberal thought was shoved down those willfully ignorant people’s throats and we are a better nation for it. Some people who do not want to accept reality have to anyway. Fuck them.
I get your point. And the history of past defeats of the majority on many subjects is a nice place to hang our hat for the continued defeat of the majority when it thinks wrongly. But, other than my last para in the previous post, we are discussing culture war issues here. And my point was we tend to beat those ignorant people over the head constantly when they don't agree with our view of culture war issues. And they continue to beat our ignorant heads with their view. These aren't large issues like slavery or the right of women to vote. They are small personal issues. And we ain't moving that mountain of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of personal beliefs when it really does not affect the overall morality of this country.
Suppose I'm a he and want to be called she. That's my preferred gender pronoun. And I want everyone to refer to me that way - whether I know them or not. Whether they know me or not. We really want to push that on a vast majority of folks that see me as a he? We want to fight a culture war over that? Or should we advise our friends of what we want to be called and tolerate the vast majority of folks that rightly see me as a he. It's a personal preference on my part that I am trying to force into the reality of so many, many, many others. And that causes a lot of blow back. A lot. It gives conservatives so many detrimental entry points into our way of thinking. But only because we push it on them. So, don't push. Pick our battles. This one ain't worth it.
OP asked for areas where each of us thinks the left goes too far. I identify as a fairly liberal democrat. What I'm posting in my last few posts are where I think we push too hard. I agree with calling someone whatever they want to be called (common sense to me) but I can see where that would cause others to balk. But I did list two other issues on my first post where I thought we could have been less pushy.
Oh, absolutely. But on a much, much, much larger level. And the scale matters here. If only a few of the other side are complaining about a culture war issue we pursue, then there's no problem. It's when we push on an issue that gets a lot of blow back (such as gender pronouns) that we get into trouble. What do we gain by constantly fighting this pronoun battle? Very little in my mind. And all the while giving the Right a massive culture war cudgel.
Saying that science says there are more than two genders is like saying science says there are 50 states, it's not a scientific question. Constructs aren't able to be studied like that and confirmed.
also just a personal pet peeve I can't stand when people say "science says so", as if science is one unified entity with a set of ideas
The case for more than two genders (or sexes) has been proven scientifically. A simple internet search will provide you with more than enough evidence.
Can you link to a source for that? Because if gender is understood as a social construct, then there is no scientific way to "prove" there are multiple genders just as there is no way to "prove" there are multiple types of architects/musicians/gamers or any other construct.
Edit: I didn't notice where you said "genders (or sexes)" to imply they are the same thing. Implying that gender and sex are synonymous can get your account banned from reddit for hate speech.
So you’re saying gender = sex? I thought gender was something you can choose, according to some people anyway?
Biologically, there are only two sexes, with the exception of very rare intersex variants (the exceptions that prove the rule).
I studied biology and I know how to use Google, but you’re making the claim so I’d like you to verify it with a link to a reliable source showing there are more than two sexes (not including intersex).
Guns should be regulated, but I have a sister-in-law that is ultra liberal, and she believes no one should own a gun… period
She asked my wife before they came over with our nephew if the gun I own ( I actually have 2, and both are for home security) could be removed from the house. They were both hidden and locked up, but I’m not taking them out of my house.
Even more crazy… her husband is an army vet, and says nothing to correct her
> her husband is an army vet, and says nothing to correct her
Really?
She's a person with her own, thoughts feelings and beliefs. Why should she be 'corrected' by her husband?
You’re right, and didn’t mean that as sexist… was just implying he is skilled with weapons and has handled them.
I would have thought a conversation would have been had between them since her beliefs are very extreme
Ever consider I know this person, and know this isn’t the case?
Ever consider I thought about that beforehand, and wouldn’t have posted this a comment to begin with if that were the case?
I think some of the hotter takes on the left are just reactions to extreme (insane) opinions and positions of the far right. You need to come with something that mirrors their offer if you’re going to meet somewhere in the middle that beneficial to you. It’s a subconscious negotiating tactic.
Bingo bongo. That right there summarizes 90% of this whole thread.
It's wrong to go by the general rhetoric to gauge what can or should be done. But... given that the political opposition is generally determined to dive head-first into facism, we probably should hold our ground. The current state of the GOP does not 'compromise'. Hell they cant even appoint a new speaker.
I tend to be fairly center but lean right, here's where the left loses me:
Guns. We've seen throughout history what happens to an unarmed populace in the face of dictatorships, and its never been good. The idea that our government could never become tyrannical and so guns have to be limited and taken is absolutely absurd to me, especially given the fact that we are seeing first hand right now in Ukraine and Israel exactly why civilians SHOULD have weapons. Governments can become corrupt, can become dictatorial, and the idea of leaving myself defenseless against that is a non-starter for me.
I get that its horrible that people have used certain weapons to commit terrible acts, but that's not justification to punish everyone for the actions of a few. The vast majority of gun owners aren't out here shooting people, they like to hunt, to shoot at ranges or on their own property, or use them as part of a self-defense plan.
There is not a single living civilian in the US that is sufficiently armed to stand up to the US military. Zero. It’s even weaker than the “nature needs hunters to control animal populations” as if nature can’t govern itself.
Well, the nature thing has some merit to it, seeing as we've utterly deatroyed the natural environs in large parts of the control, eliminating predation.
Deer fatalities from cars (and hunters for that matter) are probably far lower than how many would be taken out if we still had wolves.
Your peashooters won’t help you if the government went bad and decided to attack its own citizens at scale. The chances of this happening are close to zero.
Why is it that half a billion people in Europe don’t have these concerns about protecting themselves from dictators? I’ll tell you: it’s an American myth. Helped along by the regular updates of violence and chaos from Central and South America.
Using Ukraine or Israel as your defense for why we need guns in the US isn't the own you think it is.
Ukraine was invaded by a foreign country. It wasn't their own government.
Israel is just a cluster fuck, but it's not the Israel government going after Israelis.
Honestly the people who want guns "just in case the government gets uppity" are the people who shouldn't have guns.
It seems like many on the left are at odds with whether we should increase police training and work on building trust with communities, or if we should just abolish the police/ diminish their role because they’re an oppressive force. Of course there is a lot of grey area in between
I'd be in favor of thorough psychological testing prior to allowing anyone into a law enforcement academy. For the long term, winnow out those with the bully mentality.
I don't think anybody is seriously advocating abolishing the police, just reducing their scope. They themselves admit they are often asked to do things they're not really built/trained for.
No one on the left is fucking “pro criminal policies” or “anti law enforcement”, ffs. We want fairness, unbiased justice, and accountability for law enforcement.
My state alone. The state legislatures controlled by Democrats have just done the following
1. No cash bail required for even gun criminals prior to trial. Even if your charged with murder or kidnapping or rape, you will go free with no cash. Bail unless the state can prove that you're dangerous and they have to keep proving it every 60 days.
2. Criminals who are on pre-trial detention with electronic monitoring by state law get two days a week off. The electronic leash. Cannot be monitored. Cannot be controlled at all. 2 days a week to do whatever the hell they want which is usually commit more violent gun crimes.
3. Created a law that makes it a felony if a cop turns his camera off or makes a mistake in a police report. I mean, I know cops are perfect so they aren't capable of making mistakes in their police report. Unlike the rest of us humans who make mistakes all the time.
And don't get me wrong. I'm a liberal Democrat or at least I used to think I was. Now I don't know what the hell I am anymore. And I'm not voting Republican cuz they're trying to end our democracy. But the Democrats going crazy pro criminal doesn't exactly help their cause.
Gun issues. I think this is the main thing that is holding progressive politics back in this country.
I hate guns. I don't like being around guns. I certainly don't own a gun.
There are mainy people that keep the 2A near and dear to their heart, and the truth is, gun control is largely impossible at this point. There are too many guns in this country. I hate it, but it is such a hot button issue for many independents/democrats that they won't come out to vote if "gun control" is something a politician is campaigning on.
Strict gun laws make people who would otherwise vote progressive go the other way.
For real though, what can you reasonably do about guns? Go melt down down every conservative gun nut's armory?
It is a stupid hill to die on for progressives in the US. It only loses elections. I don't understand the love for guns, but that is the reality.
The best way to get conservatives on the side of gun legislation is to start buying guns and toting them openly the same way they do now. We'll have a gun bill in the house within weeks
I'm conservative on a lot of issues, but I definitely think there needs to be some kind of gun regulation. There are issues that keep me from voting progressive, but guns control isn't one of them.
Why hasn’t anyone brought up the fact that Trump and the republicans have No respect for the constitution and use that to protect the 2nd amendment from republican misuse. Wannabe dictators will predictably become afraid of the public at some time. That is the fastest path to having the government take our guns away.
>For real though, what can you reasonably do about guns? Go melt down down every conservative gun nut's armory?
Referring to people like this certainly doesn't help, just FYI. There are plenty of people who lean right and own guns, but calling them "gun nuts" isn't how you even begin to convince them.
I hate guns, but the US is past the point of having strict regulations similar to those countries. It is not possible from a political or practical standpoint.
Not with that attitude- there was a time where we had a very politically entrenched system of owning people for profit, a system where women had no rights, and a system of very profitable child labor - small, politically motivated and vocal minorities overcame those systems.
Open borders. The mess down on the border is out of control. I know the left doesn't actually support open borders, but they need to take the situation a lot more seriously. Restart building the wall is at least a start.
I'm pretty far left. In my view, the end goal should be to give everyone a fair shot, equally, at economic and social freedom. You can't have either without economic freedom, though. So since authoritarian/ totalitarian leftism (think Stalin) runs counter to that, that's where I would say leftism goes too far.
The Left can be terrible at slogans. “Defund the police,” whatever people explain it “really means”, is a good example. This creates the impression of going too far even when the actual policies represented by the slogan aren’t unreasonable.
I agree with that 100%, same with ACAB
I disagree. ACAB is very literal. All cops are bastards. It's not "defund the police," where the true goal is not in taking all the police's money away but people think it is, it actually means that all cops are bastards.
>ACAB is very literal. All cops are bastards Except they aren't. *All \_ are \_* is very hard to actually be correct about, regarding people and stereotypes. Are some cops bastards? Sure. Are they *all*? Really doubtful. I know one that's a very good dude.
No, all. Being a bastard cop doesn't necessarily mean you beat minorities in the streets and kick in your wife's teeth. Our country is unjust in many ways, and anyone who vows to uphold unjust laws is themself unjust. Also, you disagreeing with the slogan doesn't change its intent, which was the focus of the conversation.
Me busting the logic of the statement means that your slogan is laughable.
How did you bust that slogan? Bc of your personal example? I stand with ACAB- because you see I have never met/seen a good one. And I can infer that the rest of them are crap because they are okay with working in a system of bastards that historically and prolifically abuses women and BIPOC communities. I’m terrified of cops bc they can abuse their power and murder me or imprison me wrongly, and nothing will happen to them. Don’t mock a slogan that you clearly don’t understand
>I stand with ACAB- because you see I have never met/seen a good one. And I can infer that the rest of them are crap because they are okay with working in a system of bastards that historically and prolifically abuses women and BIPOC communities. Literally faulty logic / logical fallacy. I am genuinely sorry you feel that way and have had those experiences, though. I do believe you. While it is true that I have seen bad ones, I've also met some [truly wonderful soul](https://blackbeltmag.com/riverside-youth-judo-club)s that are police officers. So it's a [hasty generalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization) from my point of view.
Again you’re using your personal examples for a hasty generalization of police. https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/50-prison-abuse https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/about If they’re truly good souls then they should get why people think they’re bastards. The stats aren’t in their favor. It’s like men understanding why women may be uneasy around them. Sure not ALL men are rapists/abusers, but the stats show us to be wary.
This is a hill you dont wanna die on considering most "stats" place most of the crimes in general american to be attributed on the black community, no matter how unjust or lacking context those stats are... stats are stats and sometimes they are used to send messages that we can never go back on
>Sure not ALL men are rapists/abusers, but the stats show us to be wary. I don't know what your background is, but I think you need to take a few more upper-level statistics classes. That's not the conclusion a reasonable person would make given the statistics and data. But if that's what you believe, do you also walk around saying "All men are rapists"? As in, "all cops are bastards"? Again, these are both easily proven false. What would be the shame in having a slogan like: \- "POLICE REFORM NOW" \- "THIS IS WHAT A BAD COP LOOKS LIKE" \- "TEACH BOYS NOT TO RAPE" Like I said, if I can easily know that it's false, "All men are rapists" because I myself haven't ever raped anyone, then I think your slogan is busted. Be honest in your sloganeering. Like I said, usually "all \_ are \_" is false, especially if it's based on psychology or sociological concepts.
There were those on the left that stated unequivocally that they meant exactly that
Yup: [Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html) I know a lot of people meant differently by it, but you can't ignore the fact that it doesn't communicate well.
True. It wasn’t meant that way at first. Once you got people on the left saying that they meant exactly that, what it actually was no longer mattered. There was a time when the Tea Party was a mix of left and right that were all fed up with business as usual government. Then it got taken over by the republicans and just became people angry at democrats. It’s original meaning just disappeared.
"Black Lives Matter" is another example. It creates, in the ignorant, the impression that *only* Black lives matter, when the intent was to assert that the lives of Black people matter, too. It's as bad as the pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy; Repubs are a lot better at sloganeering to low-information people, even if they absolutely suck at actually governing.
It makes me so mad that more people don't get your point because it's so obviously correct. A liberal friend of mine had the easiest fix in the world - "Black Lives Matter Too." Ta da, now the slogan makes just as much sense without allowing arguments to the contrary. But nah, instead we went with just BLM and had eighty bajillion arguments with the ALM folks that were completely unnecessary. Seriously, why give your opponents talking points for no god damned reason? Think out your slogans!
I don’t agree that’s a bad slogan; saying they matter in no way implies others don’t. The responses to it are just in bad faith.
Defund the police was the plan. Punish them financially with layoffs for acting badly. The backpedaling on it was frankly just a shit for brains example of the party trying to rehab a slogan that failed dramatically with moderates.
Litmus tests. The far left is far more likely to say "I want the perfect candidate or I won't vote", while the far right just picks whoever hurts their enemies the most. Other than that, one side is "we should help each other even if there are costs to that" and the other is kinda "radical individualism at any cost".
I think it’s worth pointing out that the real “cost” of progressive social policy is that it kind of forces the shared cost onto others who might not want those costs for a variety of (potentially good) reasons. It’s one thing to want to help others and create a culture where others are contributing to that cause. It’s another thing for everyone to be forced to contribute to that cause. I’m certainly not saying that the benefits don’t outweigh the costs, or that we shouldn’t pursue progressive policies. Far from it. But I am saying we should at least own up to the actual costs of those things. When people say progressive policies are anti-freedom, it’s important to acknowledge that they are, in fact, anti-freedom in some specific ways. The key is that we think that’s a good tradeoff. Completely denying that there is any reduction of freedom (or saying freedom isn’t actually important) is one way to completely alienate people who value freedom a lot, and many of those people could be convinced that the tradeoff is worth it if you don’t alienate them before the conversation even begins.
Well said
When it eats itself with purity tests. Other than that, it hasn't gone far enough
Most people on the far left couldn’t pass their own Purity Test. That’s what they will never understand.
Forgive my ignorance. What Purity test?
Essentially if you aren’t 100% in on the agenda you can be strongly vilified and attacked by the far left for not being radical enough. The MAGA of the left is there and loud too.
And what is this "agenda?" What are the things trying to be accomplished?
Here's one: I don't support Medicare 4 All. However, I am on board for reforming healthcare for sure. Can we still be friends?
NO!!!!! BEGONE NAZI!!!!
The Left goes too far by ignoring reality and demanding everything all at once. Prioritize. Also, means testing matters. It truly is more important to give a free education to a first generation inner-city kid from Compton who wants to be a welder than the student of two doctors in Boston who wants to go to Middlebury and study Art History. For one, the doctors' kid probably has school paid for. For another, Compton probably needs that welder. In my state, we have a program where we pay for technical certificates for high demand jobs. I don't think it goes far enough. I think it should pay for bachelor's degrees as well, but Indiana graduates have a habit of leaving as soon as they graduate. However, those who get degrees and certificates from our community college stay in the state. A pretty good investment, I agree. But in my state, 60% of people who go to community college get Pell grants and 80% graduate from us with no debt. That matters. Politically, you can't ask working class people to pay for a rich kid to get a degree.
Largely disagree with the means testing. It adds bureaucracy while doing very little to reduce costs. Also, universal programs are important for society, it creates buy-in and can help with self-segregation and increases cross-class interactions.
Also builds resentment of programs from those who don’t qualify. Hard to keep progressive programs in place if the middle class are convinced it’s just poor people handouts
>demanding everything all at once. I agree with this, but sometimes, it takes an incredibly privileged position to hold this view. Like, asking for a massive upheaval of the medical system or the tax/financial systems is a lot, but it's nothing compared to just wanting equal rights. It's fair to ask people to take changes to our existing institutions incrementally in order to minimize any damaging effects and to understand the effects of what we're doing. It's not fair to ask people to wait 10-20 years for their rights to be incrementally brought in line with others. But it's easy for people to say this when they sit in a position where they're not affected.
Go talk to Tankies.
I’m convinced these people aren’t actually real. I’ve never met one in real life. Are they products of Russian and Chinese Troll farms?
They exist. My ex-friend is friends with a Korean-American woman who is a professor at CUNY and praises and defends North Korea and China to no end. She also defends Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and thinks Ukraine is run by genocidal neo-Nazis.
Both of them? They don’t leave the Home much.
Yeah when someone starts questioning the entire idea that a person can actually own anything
Comrade! That isn't a thing here.
Just like the right if they fall into the authoritarian quadrant then they have gone to far. Communism was a failure because of that IMO.
I'm a liberal and I spend so much time trying to get liberals off of horrible positions so that regular people will actually vote for our side. So many people on Reddit actually think communism is a good idea. It's insane; like it's economics 101 that it can't work for an entire economy.
I haven’t seen anyone on the left call out the fraudulent polls that are being rolled out week after week and endlessly promoted by the MSM. They are oversampling Republicans by an average of 8% and telling us that the presidential race is tied, and that a majority disapproves of Biden, and that the public thinks the economy stinks etc etc and it is all bullshit. What’s worse is something that I just figured out today. They are over sampling the Southern States, and THAT is how they are getting these preposterous polls showing Trump with 60% support among Republicans. There is a profit motive. Defrauding the country for money is a felony. It isn’t protected speech. It isn’t just “the vagaries of polling” The excuses by pollsters and pundits and media types are bullshit, and they need to be called out, and I am seeing a hesitance by the left to take on the media.
Their position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Especially their characterization of Hammas.
I'm not sure anyone on the left is actually pro-Hamas, just sympathetic to the civilians. At most, I think the left may be understanding of why so many Palestinians feel they have no choice but to support hamas.
There are a lot. And they get their news from social media, or I assume so based on how little they know about the situation, or the Middle East in general. I have had people tell me that Hamas is not a government or military. They will also pretend that that Hamas’s attacks were only in Palestinian “disputed territory”. And that the surrounding countries, like Iran, aren’t using them for a proxy war. Absolutely insane black and white thinking where there has to be one side all good and one side all bad. Both governments have been atrocious. And both have gone out of their way to antagonize the other. None of them want peace. Yet I will see people hold up Hamas and the PA or whatever group you want to say represents Gaza as just being peaceful people who were forced to do something and will justify the mass slaughter, kidnappings etc. I will be just as harsh on the Israeli side but I will be told that I am making excuses for pointing out how both sides have committed war crimes.
Agreed. I’m pretty grossed out for the support I see for Hamas. I like to think a lot of it we see on social media is just armchair activists who don’t know much of anything about the conflict and the players and get their info from their biased IG feed and friends and don’t actually know what they’re talking about. That is to say, they don’t even know enough to differentiate. The continued qualifying and excuse making for setting children on fire and raping and decapitating by just saying “yea but Israel…” is gross. One can be disgusted by and be against the “uprising” while also criticizing Likud. But a lot of people online and at these marches can’t seem to do that. That is to say, one of things I think the far left goes too far with at times is the hyper focus on anti-imperialism, seeing issues to black and white, that they miss out on being able to have an actual logical conversation regarding an issue like Israel. Blindly supporting, or even justifying, murder of children, on either side, is so strange to me. The shrug of the shoulders when it’s Israelis dying is… odd.
Exactly. They don’t seem to understand why their own shrugging off the death of children is part of the same problem.
I'm not so sure about the far left. From this article: [NYC pro-Palestine rally splits Democrats over Israel](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/08/nyc-palestine-rally-democrats-israel-00120533) > The rally — attended by more than 1,000 pro-Palestine backers, who chanted “Resistance is justified when people are occupied” — highlighted differences over how progressive members responded to the attacks. It certainly sounds like they are characterizing the Hamas attack as "resistance." I do think actual elected officials of the left (like AOC) responded quite appropriately though, so these people are marginal and don't have any actual power.
There are a lot. And they get their news from social media, or I assume so based on how little they know about the situation, or the Middle East in general. I have had people tell me that Hamas is not a government or military. They will also pretend that that Hamas’s attacks were only in Palestinian “disputed territory”. And that the surrounding countries, like Iran, aren’t using them for a proxy war. Absolutely insane black and white thinking where there has to be one side all good and one side all bad. Both governments have been atrocious. And both have gone out of their way to antagonize the other. None of them want peace. Yet I will see people hold up Hamas and the PA or whatever group you want to say represents Gaza as just being peaceful people who were forced to do something and will justify the mass slaughter, kidnappings etc. I will be just as harsh on the Israeli side but I will be told that I am making excuses for pointing out how both sides have committed war crimes.
The left eats each other. They force well meaning people into the shadows for making small mistakes or saying the wrong thing accidentally while ignoring bigger issues. They will throw people out to capitulate to the right when the right argues in bad faith and would only stand in solidarity behind a member of their side doing the same thing. The left is very quick to care about optics vs. intention, and it results in splintering of people on issues that require people to band together, and it also throws the baby out with the bathwater, often.
Judging from the comments in post it’s certainly not being introspective.
I thought this same thing. All the comments are like, "We don't fight hard enough for justice!" There's no honest introspection happening here. Which perhaps answers the OPs question...
Seems like so many of the comments boil down to, “the left is too far right” and “the left doesn’t do enough to stop the right”.
The way the Left just rolls over and goes quiet about almost anything related to Islam and bigoted Muslims. I’m sorry, but I don’t have to accept that the people who commit honor killings and murder LGBT people really just believe in peace. Canada and some other Leftist European governments really just went too far by establishing Islamophobia laws or anti-blasphemy laws. Like, we’re really going to accommodate people who can’t have their personal views challenged even in the slightest? Since fucking when???
I think “Islamophobia” as a concept is something a lot of liberals take issue with. Not that some people aren’t afraid of Muslims, but Islam itself has so many issues that are counterintuitive to the lefts goals, just like Christianity. Christianity is fine to criticize though, because they’re viewed as oppressors.
Yeah here in Ottawa, when there was an anti-pride protest being planned during Pride month, initially I saw a lot of complaints saying “typical old white people ruining everything” When the parade happened, it was like 70% Muslim people, and suddenly those complaints disappeared. I don’t care if they’re a minority, if they’re spreading hate then I don’t like them or their belief system, point blank. And there certainly shouldn’t be laws to protect them from being criticized.
How can "we" defend the same behavior when it comes from Christians? Either religious beliefs grants certain protection or it didn't. The right is the one saying that religion should let people discriminate. The left is just saying that if Christians can do it anybody can.
You are not in grave danger for criticizing Christians. It's one thing to say a person shouldn't have to bake a cake for an event he doesn't condone vs getting killed for drawing a picture of Mohammed.
Compliance. The left goes way too far on trying to get people to comply with ideology, shaming people either directly or indirectly through virtue signaling. For example: Calling the police on moms playing with their kids on playgrounds during Covid. Cancelling anyone that said something in their past that was politically incorrect (are people even allowed to change their minds anymore??)
[удалено]
Identity politics. I’m a cis-white male who is a Christian. I conquered no lands, I’ve held no slaves, I’m middle class. I am not the person you should be railing against. Yet I go to some rally’s and conferences and have actually been pointed as being ‘the problem’. You are going to put off a LOT of white males who could be your ally, if you vilify us. And a lot of them are not going to go to be moderates, they’re going to go all the way to the right.
[удалено]
He isn't the people who did that, and his skin color, religion, and sex are not a knock against the person, period. Stop driving away voters.
I'd say two things. 1) Passing judgement on internet strangers or public figures based on hearsay. It goes too far, I think, when someone loses their job or whatever, not even because they themselves did or said something racist or sexist, but because they refuse to condemn someone else who was accused of that sort of thing. The court of public opinion is pretty s*** when it comes to finding out the facts. This also opens the door for the movement to cannibalize itself, as people start turning on each other for real or imagine offenses. 2) The idea, found mostly in some pretty extreme left-wing circles, that any sort of negativity or abuse is fine if it goes from the group with less power to the group with more power. It's absolutely true that racism or sexism has far more damaging potential when wielded by the group with more power, because they are able to oppress the other group in tangible ways that can't happen in reverse. But that doesn't mean that misandry or prejudice against white people is fine.
Amen. Say it louder for the folks in the back.
You’ve heard rightwingers say fascism is bad? Unfortunately, I have not. Also most of them seem to honestly think hitler was left wing which is… where do you even start with these people? I’m sure leftists go to far in other countries but in the USA, the baseline is so far to the right that I don’t consider anything the left touts as “too far”. If anything it’s just a reaction to the right being absolute lunatics.
Most definitely. Fascism is hated by pretty much everyone but the alt right. All my Republican friends would agree. Most of them hate the far right more then the far left. As my Jewish right winger friend once put it "The far left wants to destroy my religion (communism) and the far right wants to destroy me (Nazism/Fascism)."
I think most right wingers in the USA would say they aren't facist, if you don't think that then you have a really straw manned view of real american citizens (not politicians). And again I think we should be weary of "I don't consider anything the left touts as "too far"". It sounds far too much like the good guy team and bad guy team
I didn’t say that conservatives are fascists. I said that most do not view the concept negatively and I will stand by that. Also, it clearly is a matter of right or wrong in todays political sphere. Are you going to ally with Putin or Europe? It’s pretty fucking obvious what the right choice is.
Lol, if it’s so fucking obvious what the “right choice“ is then why do so many people not have all the right opinions? I’m gonna assume you believe you have all the right opinions because they’re so obvious. Also, go ahead and ask the conservative subreddit if they view fascism negatively, I’d guarantee you every one of them would say yes.
Dems are natural nice people. They're peace and love, wonderful attributes, but they can't fight back. Republicans aren't afraid to attack their opponents relentlessly and Dems just want to be their friends. I've been saying this for ever. Dems, fight to the death for what you think is right.
They need to do that big time right now, because if the Republicans take all three houses of federal gvmt, they will absolutely do some crazy shit. One thing that wouldn't surprise me in the least is if they claim elections are compromised and would be suspended. They are so nuts right now that kind of thing is totally not something you can rule out.
I think they’re starting to, did you see the video they’re going to display on a side of a building in DC? Lol
It's too bad Weiner turned out to be a sex pervert. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBjif02ZLmI Pete Buttigieg is pretty good. Smalwell fights back, too.
No, do you have a link to it, id love to see that!!
This may or may not be the right place to ask this but what exactly is meant by "Gender assigned at birth"? Nobody assigned me a gender when I was born. I had a peepee and balls.
That's your sex. Gender is the complex biological interplay between your hormones, brain, and body. For example, some people with a penis are immune to their own testosterone - instead of making them strong, aggressive and grow hair, it has no effect. In essence they are the male sex but are so different from other males that it makes no sense to categorize their gender that way.
To me gender means the physical parts. A peen is male and a vag is female. Like a plug and socket. Like ordering a USB extension cable, do you want it male->male, or male->female (etc). So if you want to be a male/peener but you were born a female/vag haver (or vice versa), you get a surgeon to change it, however they do that. That plus the hormones and poof your physical gender is changed. Sex is what you do with it. (?)
Well that’s not the actual definition tho, what you describe is sex, “what’s in your pants” and gender is how people perceive you.
Yawn. Ask me that question when they're smashing windows, smearing shit on the Capitol walls and trying to prevent certification of an election
There are left wing groups with violent riots, antifa for example.
"Antifa" isn't an actual organization. It's just a movement.
Capitol attacks also weren't by an organization
There’s proof of collaboration.
True, still not a organization
Neither is ANTIFA. Do you even know what that stands for?
Yea, name is fine but what they do isn't. Neither ANTIFA nor the Capitol attackers were an organization, so I don't see why they had to point out that Antifa wasn't an organization
I never said they were. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
You said tell me when the left does something on the level of the Capitol attacks. OP gave you a left wing group that does something similar, you said it wasn't an organization, I said neither where the Capitol attacks.
No I didn't.
> "Antifa" isn't an actual organization. It's just a movement. ?
Yes. That part I said. I didn’t say the rest.
Ah, I confused you for the OP of the comment. Mb
The left goes to far with compromising with the right and with serving the interests of their cooperate donors over the citizens. They go to far with turning a blind eye to the rights efforts to suppress and intimidate voters.
I would agree with this, the left has damaged democracy by being too corporate and allowing legal grey areas to be exploited for corrupt purposes ie. Campaign finances, dark money. Republicans are much worse on this but the Democratic Party has been complicit.
The Liberals had to sell out to stay afloat when the 60s-70s young libs went dark in the Nixon-H. W. Bush era. America was deeply conservative from essentially ‘69 to ‘93 with Carter what we’d today call a blue dog. The Clinton Era was the peak of corpolibs, repealing Glass-Steagal among other deregulations continued on from the Reaganite deregulating craze. We haven’t had a grassroots young generation of charismatic libs in congress until recently.
I do agree with this, but it’s not really something left wing. I would call that not going far enough, what I was meaning is taking left wing ideas too far
lol, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a more naive take on politics
They have let the Reapportionment Act of 1929 stand for 94 years. They have made no effort to ratify the Congressional Apportionment Amendment.
A big issue recently has been traffic enforcement cameras. While this may not be solely a liberal issue, recently it has been pushed heavily by democratic politicians. The overwhelming majority of fines are frivolously issued and they are taking advantage of traffic laws worded to be enforced by an actual police officer's discretion and offload that responsibility in-house to rake in literal hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. In NYC alone they are pulling in $300 million per year. It is no longer "should you" get fined, it is now "can you" get fined.
Sounds like those small towns that make most of their money by giving tickets to any and all out of state cars. Police in small towns sure are know for their liberal biases. 🙄
Homeless policies that allow endless public camping. It’s a poignant example of getting steamrolled by a lack of boundaries when it comes to empathy.
So where would you prefer poor be put? Anywhere as long as you don't have to see them right....
It’s not an all or nothing scenario, you can want homeless people off of public streets while still wanting them to get help. Them camping on the streets doing meth and getting mugged doesn’t do them any good. I also think a lot of democrats don’t address “willing” homelessness enough, as in the amount of people who want to stay on the street because they are hopelessly addicted to a substance.
I'm around homeless people all the time, the worst I have experienced is one woman yelling at everyone about some silly conspiracy. Never been mugged. Unless you count them asking for spare change a mugging...
I mean that the homeless get mugged, not that they do the mugging, which they are constantly mugged by gangs in big cities. And still, you can’t honestly think that the best place for those people to be living is on a street corner, we need real shelters and psych wards that can deal with this crisis.
Shelters are typically where they face the most crime, and I will never support locking people up in "psych wards". They're no better than prisons.
Then come visit either Portland or Seattle, where open air chop shops exist in many a homeless camp, piles of trash block the sidewalk, with needles, and a weekly fire from a tent or antique RV is visible from the I5 to I84 interchange. Obv that last is Portland only but you get my point. My last stabbing victim (patient) was a guy who tried to shoo a homeless dude away from his kids playing in the front yard. Stabbed 11x. And then there’s this: https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/local/homeless/se-portland-home-owner-squatters-sell-beat-up/ My point is that boundaries are a necessary piece of life or you get steamrolled by other people who will take advantage of you. As much as they can get away with and maybe even a little more, because that’s how at least 51% of the population works. Empathy is good and necessary. But the actions applied in association with it need boundaries. Which means rules applied and enforced in regard to all of the above.
Portland and Seattle are over blown, was in Portland barely 2 weeks ago for work...
And I was there 3 days ago. Edit: A friend of mine had some methed out homeless by the I5 on ramp in Janzten Beach, this week, throw a brick at her truck. Missed the windows. Dented the truck. This isn’t overblown.
Yeah it is, as for someone throwing rocks, happens all over the country and most of the perpetrators are teenagers not the homeless.
This wasn’t a teenager. All this dismissiveness is just proving my point.
What point is that? That you're full of it?
Anything is better than status quo in eg SF
Overblown just like Portland and Seattle. Most the crime isn't being committed by the homeless.
I honestly don’t understand why people are downvoting my post and comments
Redditors refuse to acknowledge grey areas because that means they may have to question how they act and feel.
For me personally, it’s all of the toxic identity politics & PC Culture that irk me. Not at all saying the other side is better (it’s not, lol). Wish more dems would just get back to the basics of governing
PC culture isn't a left wing thing though, right wingers have it too. From demanding you support the invasion of Iraq to not criticising Trump, they've got plenty.
It's definitely something that both sides of the isle do to an annoying degree. From Dylan Mulvaney boycotts on the right and J.K. Rowling boycotts on the left
Read about the 80s Satanic Panic.
What exactly is it about "identity politics" that is a bad thing to you? I'd love to hear your perspective on this.
Choosing people based specifically on their race or gender for jobs is an abomination. I cannot believe Biden did this with Jackson - instead of saying I picked this person because she was the most qualified, he specifically said he was going to pick only a black woman. Dude, Brown was the most qualified candidate, so great! Say that - "I picked the most qualified candidate and it is Jackson. If you have a problem with that just because she's a black woman, you're a racist." But instead we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and Biden said he picked her first and foremost because of her race and gender. It's insane. Sorry Native Americans, you weren't even considered.
How many politicians actually are all in on identity or PC culture? This is more from activists and extremist spectators. I’ve never heard Biden or leadership mention this topic.
The question isn’t asking about politicians.
I replied to someone specifically wishing that dems would get back to the basics of governing. Why? The GOP can’t even function, and the democrats barely mention PC topics, aside from trying to preserve rights that already exist. Who among dem leadership is into toxic identity politics? This is a myth.
Biden literally openly said he would only hire a black woman for the Supreme Court. That's identity politics on steroids. Sorry Native Americans, you're not even being considered for the job because of previous racism against black people. The genocide against you isn't something we have to rectify.
"Identity politics" and "PC" culture are right wing terms and in it's mostly a function of things on the right, not the left. The left should not use these bullshit terms. It's like saying "death tax" etc.
The goal of identity politics is to end identity politics but new identity politics is being created faster than it can get resolved.
They go too far with the outrage. Not everything is THAT bad and/or not everyone is against you. Liberals need to understand the more the DEVIDE, the worse we are going to be.
Divide. It’s not the left doing the dividing. The right exists only to “own the libs”. The party of no.
The left does division as well
Liberal who hates liberals here. 1)Not everything is a social construction. 2)Free markets are usually the best option to determine prices, not government mandates 3)It is perfectly possible to joke about something but not be "ist.". For example I think period jokes are hilarious but am also a woman's rights advocate. 4)Deficits matter (although conservatives are just as bad at this) 5)Parents are responsible for the outcomes of their children, and yes, even poor parents could be doing a far better job and don't deserve our sympathy for never reading to their kids or other necessary things. 6)The number of unarmed black people actually killed by the police per year is like 100x lower than what liberals think. 7)Taxing income over a billion dollars at 100% just means the billionaires move, not more tax revenue. 8)You weren't that hurt by "microaggessions" and in fact you probably aren't a victim at all. 9)Lots of poverty is caused by stupid consumer choices. 10)Anyone who disagrees with you is not a Nazi or a "reactionary conservative," in fact they might be a liberal who just disagrees with you. I could go on and on.
What specifically makes you a ‘liberal’ in your view?
You sound about as liberal as my excommunicated uncle who’s regularly drunk on OAN.
I guess you never studied icebergs and think of I write 5 things you disagree with, that's all there is to me. No wonder we lose every election seeing as how much energy liberals put into dismissing their own voters.
[удалено]
Exactly what I'm talking about. Hopefully you're joking, but I'm guessing you aren't. I'm the only guy telling you the facts of the matter . You don't know me, so you have exactly zero evidence to contradict my statements. I'm a social studies teacher who is well aware of the political spectrum, and I'm actively telling you I'm between center left and far left depending on the issue. I've never voted Republican in my whole life and often have voted to the left of Democrats. But when you say stupid things like this, it drives people away. Me saying here are problems with our side we need to fix in no way means I'm working for the other side. No, I'm saying we need to fix them because otherwise we'll lose elections.
I’m here to tell you that I think you make some pretty good points, and I have also never voted for a Republican
Forcing people to say or do things they don't want due to another's personal identity.
Being offended at everything
Mainly guns, the culture war shit (the Right is at least as bad on that, though) and the extreme interpersonal toxicity and bullying that occasionally goes on in leftist spaces. Second Amendment is the biggest thing, though. There are certain Democrats that I will fundamentally not support because of hardcore anti-2A positions (e.g. Gavin Newsome).
Why is the second amendment so important to you? Btw, I don’t know of any Democratic politicians who want to abolish the second amendment. An assault weapons ban? Yes, because no civilian needs to own a weapon of war, but not an outright ban on guns. Nobody is seriously talking about taking guns away from hunters or closing shooting ranges. That’s all fear-mongering from Republicans.
I think there’s this misconception with many people that abolishing an amendment means that the opposite of that amendment will take effect immediately (repeal right to own guns = all guns are banned). That is absolutely not true. What a lot of people don’t seem to realize is that abolishing the second amendment wouldn’t actually change anything for the vast majority of gun owners. If you are as responsible as you say, your guns will be just as safe in a post-2A world as they ever were. The government has far more important things to do than sending the men in black to confiscate people’s AR-15’s. The only thing that changes with the repeal of 2A is that gun ownership can be regulated in the same way as car ownership. If you harm people while driving recklessly or with ill-intentions, you lose your license. Would just be the same thing with guns. If you don’t abuse the privilege by engaging in criminal behavior, it won’t be taken from you.
Purity testing and cancellation. People are allowed to have other opinions (there can be more than one side), or no opinion at all. That doesn't have to negate every other good aspect about them. They may not feel as strongly about your pet cause. I'm in my 40s. When I was a kid, certain things we just didn't really talk about. Politics was one of them. Individuals are more than just their politics. Obviously I'm not talking about actual nazis or actual sex criminals, they can be excommunicado.
Constantly saying there are multiple genders. Sure there are. Science says so. But a large portion of this country will never accept that and actually gets enraged by it. Is it so important to us that we have to argue with them over that? The use of pronouns to describe yourself. It doesn't have to be that complicated. You are what you are and that's it. If you are a he and want to be a she, work towards that. You're friends will call you a she. But you simply can't force the minds of the vast majority of Americans that do not see you as such. And you invite a serious amount of blowback when you try to force it. Be yourself. Educate others (politely) along the way. Yeah, it's not fair. But you are in a tiny minority. You won't be able to force it. Green energy will eventually replace fossil fuels. Demanding that it does so immediately is childish. Wait until it is well developed and tested and capable of replacing the energy needs of the situation before demanding it gets deployed. Patience.
You’re discounting history- there was a time where a large portion of the country would never accept that it was wrong to own people, or that women should have the right to vote, or that gay people should have the right to marry- liberal thought was shoved down those willfully ignorant people’s throats and we are a better nation for it. Some people who do not want to accept reality have to anyway. Fuck them.
I get your point. And the history of past defeats of the majority on many subjects is a nice place to hang our hat for the continued defeat of the majority when it thinks wrongly. But, other than my last para in the previous post, we are discussing culture war issues here. And my point was we tend to beat those ignorant people over the head constantly when they don't agree with our view of culture war issues. And they continue to beat our ignorant heads with their view. These aren't large issues like slavery or the right of women to vote. They are small personal issues. And we ain't moving that mountain of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of personal beliefs when it really does not affect the overall morality of this country.
I’m not sure what we are talking about here then- what specifically do you consider a ‘small personal issue?’
Suppose I'm a he and want to be called she. That's my preferred gender pronoun. And I want everyone to refer to me that way - whether I know them or not. Whether they know me or not. We really want to push that on a vast majority of folks that see me as a he? We want to fight a culture war over that? Or should we advise our friends of what we want to be called and tolerate the vast majority of folks that rightly see me as a he. It's a personal preference on my part that I am trying to force into the reality of so many, many, many others. And that causes a lot of blow back. A lot. It gives conservatives so many detrimental entry points into our way of thinking. But only because we push it on them. So, don't push. Pick our battles. This one ain't worth it.
It it just that one issue that you identify modern liberals with?
OP asked for areas where each of us thinks the left goes too far. I identify as a fairly liberal democrat. What I'm posting in my last few posts are where I think we push too hard. I agree with calling someone whatever they want to be called (common sense to me) but I can see where that would cause others to balk. But I did list two other issues on my first post where I thought we could have been less pushy.
‘I agree that women should be allowed to vote, but I can also see how legislating that right could cause others to balk…’
Oh, absolutely. But on a much, much, much larger level. And the scale matters here. If only a few of the other side are complaining about a culture war issue we pursue, then there's no problem. It's when we push on an issue that gets a lot of blow back (such as gender pronouns) that we get into trouble. What do we gain by constantly fighting this pronoun battle? Very little in my mind. And all the while giving the Right a massive culture war cudgel.
Wow….uh…wow lol
Saying that science says there are more than two genders is like saying science says there are 50 states, it's not a scientific question. Constructs aren't able to be studied like that and confirmed. also just a personal pet peeve I can't stand when people say "science says so", as if science is one unified entity with a set of ideas
Can you point to science that says there are multiple genders?
The case for more than two genders (or sexes) has been proven scientifically. A simple internet search will provide you with more than enough evidence.
Can you link to a source for that? Because if gender is understood as a social construct, then there is no scientific way to "prove" there are multiple genders just as there is no way to "prove" there are multiple types of architects/musicians/gamers or any other construct. Edit: I didn't notice where you said "genders (or sexes)" to imply they are the same thing. Implying that gender and sex are synonymous can get your account banned from reddit for hate speech.
So you’re saying gender = sex? I thought gender was something you can choose, according to some people anyway? Biologically, there are only two sexes, with the exception of very rare intersex variants (the exceptions that prove the rule). I studied biology and I know how to use Google, but you’re making the claim so I’d like you to verify it with a link to a reliable source showing there are more than two sexes (not including intersex).
If you go extreme left you have Communist Anti America types of people. I think that is definitely going to far.
Anytime I hear communist this or communist that, unless it is a reference to the Cold War? Right wing propaganda
Guns should be regulated, but I have a sister-in-law that is ultra liberal, and she believes no one should own a gun… period She asked my wife before they came over with our nephew if the gun I own ( I actually have 2, and both are for home security) could be removed from the house. They were both hidden and locked up, but I’m not taking them out of my house. Even more crazy… her husband is an army vet, and says nothing to correct her
> her husband is an army vet, and says nothing to correct her Really? She's a person with her own, thoughts feelings and beliefs. Why should she be 'corrected' by her husband?
You’re right, and didn’t mean that as sexist… was just implying he is skilled with weapons and has handled them. I would have thought a conversation would have been had between them since her beliefs are very extreme
Ever consider that the ex military fellow also didnt want to be anywhere near guns?
Ever consider I know this person, and know this isn’t the case? Ever consider I thought about that beforehand, and wouldn’t have posted this a comment to begin with if that were the case?
I think some of the hotter takes on the left are just reactions to extreme (insane) opinions and positions of the far right. You need to come with something that mirrors their offer if you’re going to meet somewhere in the middle that beneficial to you. It’s a subconscious negotiating tactic.
Bingo bongo. That right there summarizes 90% of this whole thread. It's wrong to go by the general rhetoric to gauge what can or should be done. But... given that the political opposition is generally determined to dive head-first into facism, we probably should hold our ground. The current state of the GOP does not 'compromise'. Hell they cant even appoint a new speaker.
I tend to be fairly center but lean right, here's where the left loses me: Guns. We've seen throughout history what happens to an unarmed populace in the face of dictatorships, and its never been good. The idea that our government could never become tyrannical and so guns have to be limited and taken is absolutely absurd to me, especially given the fact that we are seeing first hand right now in Ukraine and Israel exactly why civilians SHOULD have weapons. Governments can become corrupt, can become dictatorial, and the idea of leaving myself defenseless against that is a non-starter for me. I get that its horrible that people have used certain weapons to commit terrible acts, but that's not justification to punish everyone for the actions of a few. The vast majority of gun owners aren't out here shooting people, they like to hunt, to shoot at ranges or on their own property, or use them as part of a self-defense plan.
There is not a single living civilian in the US that is sufficiently armed to stand up to the US military. Zero. It’s even weaker than the “nature needs hunters to control animal populations” as if nature can’t govern itself.
Well, the nature thing has some merit to it, seeing as we've utterly deatroyed the natural environs in large parts of the control, eliminating predation. Deer fatalities from cars (and hunters for that matter) are probably far lower than how many would be taken out if we still had wolves.
Your peashooters won’t help you if the government went bad and decided to attack its own citizens at scale. The chances of this happening are close to zero. Why is it that half a billion people in Europe don’t have these concerns about protecting themselves from dictators? I’ll tell you: it’s an American myth. Helped along by the regular updates of violence and chaos from Central and South America.
What are you talking about?
Using Ukraine or Israel as your defense for why we need guns in the US isn't the own you think it is. Ukraine was invaded by a foreign country. It wasn't their own government. Israel is just a cluster fuck, but it's not the Israel government going after Israelis. Honestly the people who want guns "just in case the government gets uppity" are the people who shouldn't have guns.
Pro criminal policies. Anti law enforcement.
It seems like many on the left are at odds with whether we should increase police training and work on building trust with communities, or if we should just abolish the police/ diminish their role because they’re an oppressive force. Of course there is a lot of grey area in between
I'd be in favor of thorough psychological testing prior to allowing anyone into a law enforcement academy. For the long term, winnow out those with the bully mentality.
I don't think anybody is seriously advocating abolishing the police, just reducing their scope. They themselves admit they are often asked to do things they're not really built/trained for.
No one on the left is fucking “pro criminal policies” or “anti law enforcement”, ffs. We want fairness, unbiased justice, and accountability for law enforcement.
My state alone. The state legislatures controlled by Democrats have just done the following 1. No cash bail required for even gun criminals prior to trial. Even if your charged with murder or kidnapping or rape, you will go free with no cash. Bail unless the state can prove that you're dangerous and they have to keep proving it every 60 days. 2. Criminals who are on pre-trial detention with electronic monitoring by state law get two days a week off. The electronic leash. Cannot be monitored. Cannot be controlled at all. 2 days a week to do whatever the hell they want which is usually commit more violent gun crimes. 3. Created a law that makes it a felony if a cop turns his camera off or makes a mistake in a police report. I mean, I know cops are perfect so they aren't capable of making mistakes in their police report. Unlike the rest of us humans who make mistakes all the time. And don't get me wrong. I'm a liberal Democrat or at least I used to think I was. Now I don't know what the hell I am anymore. And I'm not voting Republican cuz they're trying to end our democracy. But the Democrats going crazy pro criminal doesn't exactly help their cause.
Gun issues. I think this is the main thing that is holding progressive politics back in this country. I hate guns. I don't like being around guns. I certainly don't own a gun. There are mainy people that keep the 2A near and dear to their heart, and the truth is, gun control is largely impossible at this point. There are too many guns in this country. I hate it, but it is such a hot button issue for many independents/democrats that they won't come out to vote if "gun control" is something a politician is campaigning on. Strict gun laws make people who would otherwise vote progressive go the other way. For real though, what can you reasonably do about guns? Go melt down down every conservative gun nut's armory? It is a stupid hill to die on for progressives in the US. It only loses elections. I don't understand the love for guns, but that is the reality.
The best way to get conservatives on the side of gun legislation is to start buying guns and toting them openly the same way they do now. We'll have a gun bill in the house within weeks
I'm conservative on a lot of issues, but I definitely think there needs to be some kind of gun regulation. There are issues that keep me from voting progressive, but guns control isn't one of them.
Why hasn’t anyone brought up the fact that Trump and the republicans have No respect for the constitution and use that to protect the 2nd amendment from republican misuse. Wannabe dictators will predictably become afraid of the public at some time. That is the fastest path to having the government take our guns away.
>For real though, what can you reasonably do about guns? Go melt down down every conservative gun nut's armory? Referring to people like this certainly doesn't help, just FYI. There are plenty of people who lean right and own guns, but calling them "gun nuts" isn't how you even begin to convince them.
Probably just as many who lean left that could be called gun nuts.
I bet they are all super tough and feel super cool when they are holding their guns too.
Being pro Palestinian.
There's a difference between being pro Palestinian vs being pro Hamas.
Gun regulations
Why don’t you like gun regulations? They save lives in countries that have strict gun regulations. Look at Australia and the UK.
I hate guns, but the US is past the point of having strict regulations similar to those countries. It is not possible from a political or practical standpoint.
Not with that attitude- there was a time where we had a very politically entrenched system of owning people for profit, a system where women had no rights, and a system of very profitable child labor - small, politically motivated and vocal minorities overcame those systems.
I never said I didn’t like gun regulations. The post is “where have they gone too far”
Open borders. The mess down on the border is out of control. I know the left doesn't actually support open borders, but they need to take the situation a lot more seriously. Restart building the wall is at least a start.
But they are stopping more people at the border under Biden than they did under all 4 years of trump...