US Politics Thread

[El Dude]

Thanks for that brother, it’s very interesting. Glad to see that somebody on the left knows about the far left, the trouble they’re causing, and how welcome they are in the White House. I don’t equate all people on the left with the far left, by the way. For instance, Bret Weinstein and Bill Maher are on the left differently, but they’re opposed to the far left. They catch flak for that. A lot of western institutions are bowing in fear to the far left.

I’ve heard of the libertarian left, and I think that when I did the political compass test a few years ago, that was where I was found. I hear them on YouTube and other places. They’re largely attacked by tribalists, far as I can see, because they dared to critique the prevailing authoritarian culture.

I totally agree about the left-right thing. I said it before here, that if somebody simply identifies as ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’ then they’ve surrendered their brains to the demagogues trend-setters and hustlers. Likewise, to an extent, if we’re affiliated closely with one party or another. Political parties should earn our vote. It ought not to be a given who we’ll vote for, and yet it is.

If I was to think of where I am politically, I would say I’m conservative on social issues, largely, or libertarian when it comes to a lot of social issues, and when I comes to welfare and health, I would be more liberal, but that’s because I’m a Catholic, not because I would think politically with regards to the less well off, and those of us who can’t afford healthcare. I would think in terms of brothers and sisters, of us all as a community that looks after each other.

The terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are more useful for me than left wing-right wing for political thinking, because understood properly they suggest an understanding of society, that some things must be preserved because they’re good, but also that change is necessary, though both might disagree on the details and the measures. Collaboration is possible because nobody is entrenched is a self-serving tribe. They’re issues-based in their politics. We’re replacing political thinking with indoctrination and agenda-based activism.

Modern tribal politics is a curse everywhere it’s found…

Nice post.

Let me clarify something that I was saying. I think the "far left" is a misnomer for the people you are talking about, because it isn't as much that they are far to the left on the economic axis as they are authoritarian about their views. They use leftism as a mask for their authoritarianism - and the right confuses this, as well.

Take, for example, a law that has just passed - or is in process - in California, that allows 12-years to emancipate themselves from their parents even if there is no signs of abuse. Meaning, a 12-year old can say "I want different parents" and the state will support this. This is borne out of the trans issue.

Is this "far left?" I'd say it has nothing to do with leftism - as an economic framework. But it certainly is authoritarian.

Furthermore, so-called "far left" Squad members like AOC sometimes use leftist rhetoric, but they continue to support endless war and don't push on anything like Medicare for All. A couple years ago there was a debate among progressive about whether or not the Squad should tell Pelosi they wouldn't vote for her re-election unless she brought MfA for a vote. They didn't, of course, and really don't talk about MfA much these days - but do sign off on billions sent to Ukraine. At one point they drafted a letter protesting the Ukraine billions, but quickly retracted it when they received pressure. And of course it is well known that AOC is pro-censureship - or at least censuring those she doesn't like.

My point is that the so-called Squad is a fraud - in terms of actual real leftism - that is, the core principles of leftism: which includes anti-imperialism, advocacy of free speech, bodily autonomy, and actual support for the working people and poor, not just occasional lip-service. They're just establishment Democrats in Id-Pol drag.

But I do understand what you mean by the "far left," and how that is the term is used. Just pointing out that they aren't actually all that much left. Antifa isn't fighting for the working class, and the Fraud Squad is, at best, impotent and merely gives the illusion of real leftism in the Democratic Party. What I see as having occuring is akin to a mind virus that has shifted the left towards authoritarianism. This so-called "far left" is now, imo, the mirror image of right-wing (religious) fundamentalism. It is a secular quasi-religious (aka "Wokism").

As for me, I've done the Political Compass several times over the years (though not for a couple years) and always end up pretty far into the left-libertarian corner. With Gandhi. LOL.

As a final note, I thought this was funny (if obviously over-simplistic):

 

[El Dude]

Anyhow, I'm admittedly an idealist in that I look for a political system that can embrace both seemingly contradictory poles:

• Individual freedom to self-define, speak freely, live in whatever way one chooses, including medical treatment, self-expression, etc (as long as it doesn't actually harm others, beyond hurt feelings).
• Governmental structures of support so that every citizen has health care, housing, and food, regardless of means.

Of course we find ourselves in a polarization in which the left doesn't give a shit about the first and doesn't really work for the second; the right somewhat cares about the first (with limits) and is utterly resistant to the second.

 

[Kieran]

Nice post.

Let me clarify something that I was saying. I think the "far left" is a misnomer for the people you are talking about, because it isn't as much that they are far to the left on the economic axis as they are authoritarian about their views. They use leftism as a mask for their authoritarianism - and the right confuses this, as well.

Take, for example, a law that has just passed - or is in process - in California, that allows 12-years to emancipate themselves from their parents even if there is no signs of abuse. Meaning, a 12-year old can say "I want different parents" and the state will support this. This is borne out of the trans issue.

Is this "far left?" I'd say it has nothing to do with leftism - as an economic framework. But it certainly is authoritarian.

Furthermore, so-called "far left" Squad members like AOC sometimes use leftist rhetoric, but they continue to support endless war and don't push on anything like Medicare for All. A couple years ago there was a debate among progressive about whether or not the Squad should tell Pelosi they wouldn't vote for her re-election unless she brought MfA for a vote. They didn't, of course, and really don't talk about MfA much these days - but do sign off on billions sent to Ukraine. At one point they drafted a letter protesting the Ukraine billions, but quickly retracted it when they received pressure. And of course it is well known that AOC is pro-censureship - or at least censuring those she doesn't like.

My point is that the so-called Squad is a fraud - in terms of actual real leftism - that is, the core principles of leftism: which includes anti-imperialism, advocacy of free speech, bodily autonomy, and actual support for the working people and poor, not just occasional lip-service. They're just establishment Democrats in Id-Pol drag.

But I do understand what you mean by the "far left," and how that is the term is used. Just pointing out that they aren't actually all that much left. Antifa isn't fighting for the working class, and the Fraud Squad is, at best, impotent and merely gives the illusion of real leftism in the Democratic Party. What I see as having occuring is akin to a mind virus that has shifted the left towards authoritarianism. This so-called "far left" is now, imo, the mirror image of right-wing (religious) fundamentalism. It is a secular quasi-religious (aka "Wokism").

As for me, I've done the Political Compass several times over the years (though not for a couple years) and always end up pretty far into the left-libertarian corner. With Gandhi. LOL.

As a final note, I thought this was funny (if obviously over-simplistic):

View attachment 8871

I think there’s far-leftism and far-rightism that easily succumbs to authoritarianism. I’d say if you asked any of The Squad or BLM or the most woke identitarians what their economic worldview is they’d say some form of something that resembles socialism. That’s their reflex, that’s where they see their constituency. But you’re saying they’re frauds, they’re like Kendi, they’re really about power and personal gain, and this doesn’t surprise. Nor does it mean that they’re any less far-left. A lot of the people from either wing pushing extreme agendas tend to be more performative than anything.

In our country the pejorative for them is ‘champagne socialists’, the meaning is well known. But the modern far left have gone further than the champagne socialists in how they use and strive to gain power. Essentially I think the far left are more like fifth columnists, trying to destroy us from within, while perversely enjoying the benefits of living in the most successful societies in history.

That’s so funny, that political compass meme. Even funnier because it’s true!

 

[Kieran]

Anyhow, I'm admittedly an idealist in that I look for a political system that can embrace both seemingly contradictory poles:

• Individual freedom to self-define, speak freely, live in whatever way one chooses, including medical treatment, self-expression, etc (as long as it doesn't actually harm others, beyond hurt feelings).
• Governmental structures of support so that every citizen has health care, housing, and food, regardless of means.

Of course we find ourselves in a polarization in which the left doesn't give a shit about the first and doesn't really work for the second; the right somewhat cares about the first (with limits) and is utterly resistant to the second.

Yeah, more or less. I don’t get right wingers who don’t believe in some form of safety net. It’s not extreme or even at odds with with the mildest forms is capitalism that the government provides health services for the less well off, from taxes paid. In fact, in the long run it places less burden on everyone…

 

[Fiero425]

This is why Hillary lost. Blue collar white man is racist? The left used to pretend to serve the working class but now you’re all showing what you really think of us. Which I knew since I was a kid, by the way.

Meanwhile the Democrats are virtuously chasing the votes of trannies, child abusers, misogynists, homophobes and - black racists?

This is really the way you’ve all gone over there. Deplorables, indeed…

Maybe, but I'll put our deplorables up against yours anytime! We're not shooting up clinics, murdering doctors, putting targets on families of judges, etc.

 

[Kieran]

Maybe, but I'll put our deplorables up against yours anytime! We're not shooting up clinics, murdering doctors, putting targets on families of judges, etc.

You see, this is a problem with people. I’m disappointed in you, brother. You assume things of me because I criticise your political pets. You should be the one criticising them, instead of deluding yourself that they’re any more virtuous than the side you hate…

 

[mrzz]

I’m socialist, I guess, in that I think healthcare should be available to all, not just those who can afford it. I’m anti-capitalism, some would say, because I think Amazon has essentially now become a monopoly, Big Pharma has way too much power in Washington, and politicians in general are beholden to money and their own self-preservation.

I'll be picky with terminology: healthcare available to all could well fall within the scope of a "welfare state" (and, yeah, people will debate what this is as well). Is this necessarily socialist? According to some, yes, but this is a radical position. The very concept of welfare state can be relativized. Anyway, my point is: if you say you are a socialist, people in general will assume far more than that you think healthcare should be available to all (by the way, I believe that too). And I get that, in America, this is "socialism" -- but the rest of the world feels differently.

Regarding anti-capitalism: I could use your own words to tell you that you are a true capitalist! One of the first issues real capitalism must deal with is monopoly. Capitalism implies, or demands, competition, and monopoly denies it. Big pharma having too much power in Washington is a symptom of a political system which is dishonest/dysfunctional (economical power interfering in political decisions beyond the legal boundaries). Capitalism does not necessarily mean a minimal state, or a completely regulation free world.

Why I am telling you all this (that you most likely already knew by the way)? Because one thing I learnt to the depths of my skin is that labels, these days, will do you more harm than good. Nobody will love you for describing yourself as A or B, but for sure a handful will hate you for that.

It is hard to be colored in a black and white world.

 

[Federberg]

I'll be picky with terminology: healthcare available to all could well fall within the scope of a "welfare state" (and, yeah, people will debate what this is as well). Is this necessarily socialist? According to some, yes, but this is a radical position. The very concept of welfare state can be relativized. Anyway, my point is: if you say you are a socialist, people in general will assume far more than that you think healthcare should be available to all (by the way, I believe that to). And I get that, in America, this is "socialism" -- but the rest of the world feels differently.

Regarding anti-capitalism: I could use your own words to tell you that you are a true capitalist! One of the first issues real capitalism must deal with is monopoly. Capitalism implies, or demands, competition, and monopoly denies it. Big pharma having too much power in Washington is a symptom of a political system which is dishonest/dysfunctional (economical power interfering in political decisions beyond the legal boundaries). Capitalism does not necessarily mean a minimal state, or a completely regulation free world.

Why I am telling you all this (that you most likely already knew by the way)? Because one thing I learnt to the depths of my skin is that labels, these days, will do you more harm than good. Nobody will love you for describing yourself as A or B, but for sure a handful will hate you for that.

It is hard to be colored in a black and white world.

I wish I could add more 'likes' to this! Free health care is NOT socialist. In fact the data suggests it results in a much lower overall fiscal impact. Looking around the world, there are great examples of this. One of the most impressive I believe is in Taiwan which still manages to use a market based medical insurance system to implement its solution.

There are far too many examples of monopolies in countries that claim to be capitalist. That is NOT capitalism, rather it's more plutocratic or even oligarchic. A lot of work needs to be done, but special interests are so powerful these days it will take something almost revolutionary to correct the over reach. I'm still struck by the interview I posted last week, regarding techno-feudalism. America and the world needs another Teddy Roosevelt to sweep away powerful corporate interests. Somewhere along the way we lost our freedom. I actually think the culture wars, particularly the part played by progressives is a weak attempt at a correction that is doomed to fail. It's not what people want, doesn't resolve the problem, and actually plays into the hands corporate interests. So much needs to be done to effect a proper correction!

 

[Fiero425]

You see, this is a problem with people. I’m disappointed in you, brother. You assume things of me because I criticise your political pets. You should be the one criticising them, instead of deluding yourself that they’re any more virtuous than the side you hate…

I now have no dog in this hunt! I gave up years ago that either party could run things w/o some bumbs in the road! Unfortunately parity doesn't exist! One side has gone so far into another world, it might as well be an alternate universe! If Dems jaywalk, Congressional hearings are in order b/c they're flaunting law! If a Republican sells out his country to a KGB Russian leader, he's lauded! Extremes maybe, but criminal behavior is criminal behavior! An entire political party decides to make the character of the president's son determine the office! Don Jr. is one step ahead of indictment, but if he were brought in as a poltical pawn, the whining wouldn't end! It makes me depressed to see the childish behavior going on! The hypocrisy is just glaring! Trump questions Biden's compentency as McConnell meanders around Congress in a FOG! I was so hoping never see it get this bad! I try to ignore the news to keep my BP down! It filters thru anyway so I know we're all doomed! A ceasefire just isn't in the cards! Threatening to be primaried makes them all march in lock-step! It doesn't seem to matter that being in unison, no matter how disgusting will be the end of us all!

 

[Kieran]

I now have no dog in this hunt! I gave up years ago that either party could run things w/o some bumbs in the road! Unfortunately parity doesn't exist! One side has gone so far into another world, it might as well be an alternate universe! If Dems jaywalk, Congressional hearings are in order b/c they're flaunting law! If a Republican sells out his country to a KGB Russian leader, he's lauded! Extremes maybe, but criminal behavior is criminal behavior! An entire political party decides to make the character of the president's son determine the office! Don Jr. is one step ahead of indictment, but if he were brought in as a poltical pawn, the whining wouldn't end! It makes me depressed to see the childish behavior going on! The hypocrisy is just glaring! Trump questions Biden's compentency as McConnell meanders around Congress in a FOG! I was so hoping never see it get this bad! I try to ignore the news to keep my BP down! It filters thru anyway so I know we're all doomed! A ceasefire just isn't in the cards! Threatening to be primaried makes them all march in lock-step! It doesn't seem to matter that being in unison, no matter how disgusting will be the end of us all!

You know, there are mirror images in both parties. Don’t forget Hunter when you mention Don Jr. Don’t forget that ancient woman - I can’t remember her name - who had to have it whispered in her ear to vote with the democrats. Don’t forget that the Democrats denied the result of the election in 2016 and peaceably rioted for 3 days. Don’t forget that both parties are hounding the leaders of the other party. They’re tearing your country apart. But that’s your problem if you won’t hold them accountable, not mine.

My anger at them is an anger at the Irish too. It’s not your fault that the bad ideas and divisions in America spread everywhere. We’re not quite grooming children to turn trans, but it’s definitely growing. Meanwhile in Ireland we’re ‘celebrating’ black history month, even though black people make up only 1.4% of our population. So why are we being invited by radio ads from our national broadcaster to celebrate an American activist victory? Because American activists made it catchy to burn buildings and loot and act as if we all live in the worst time that ever existed - and now our idiot activist class is mimicking them by thinking that our country is the same. There’s no mention, by the way, in black history month, of the busy slave trade Africans enjoyed, in trading their own people. They hardly volunteered to become slaves.

It’s irritating, and like I say, America is not to blame for people who adopt their worst ideas - but they are to blame for those ideas..

 

[Moxie]

Don’t forget that the Democrats denied the result of the election in 2016 and peaceably rioted for 3 days. e ideas..

No one denied the election results in 2016, however close and surprising. It wasn't even contested like Bush v. Gore. I'm not sure where you get that from? Also, not sure what "peaceably rioted" even means. There was a women's March in Washington the day after the inauguration. And yes, it was peaceful.

I see it irritates you that Fiero made assumptions about what you think or support. Since you don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, maybe you'll stop doing it.

 

[Moxie]

Anyhow, I'm admittedly an idealist in that I look for a political system that can embrace both seemingly contradictory poles:

I think a lot of people would agree, but let's just dig a little deeper:

* Individual freedom to self-define, speak freely, live in whatever way one chooses, including medical treatment, self-expression, etc (as long as it doesn't actually harm others, beyond hurt feelings).

I don't understand what "hurt feelings" can possibly have to do with anything. They certainly can't be legislated for/against. I would argue that the limits of self-expression aren't hurt feelings. In this country, they don't even extend to hate speech. The ACLU has defended the KKK, on freedom of speech grounds. Things you can't say legally in Germany, for example, you can say here. Folks make a lot of lack of free speech in the US, but I think folks confuse social media with actual law.

I'm rather surprised you got a "like" from Kieran on this, as he's not actually an advocate of "self-definition," nor of medical treatments for things that included them. There has been a lot of push-back on this thread, and others, that folks be able to "self-define."

For myself, I agree that folks should live the way they chose, as long as they don't harm others. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If you're seeking an abortion, in a free society, that should be your right, and you should have access to it. If your notion that people having access to medical treatment includes trans people, based on your comment about "freedom to self-define," I'll wait until some realize that's what you said.

• Governmental structures of support so that every citizen has health care, housing, and food, regardless of means.

100%.

Of course we find ourselves in a polarization in which the left doesn't give a shit about the first and doesn't really work for the second; the right somewhat cares about the first (with limits) and is utterly resistant to the second.

Here is where you lose me. You don't think that the left (I'll assume you mean Democrats) care about individual freedom to self-define? You don't think the left cares about the right to live however you chose? Who supported gay marriage? And which party pushed for healthcare, and continues to support the right to choose on abortion, and advocates for women's access to affordable healthcare?

At the same time, you say the right (I'll assume you mean Republicans) care about "the first," meaning which part? Individual freedom to self-define? I'm surprised if you think so. To live in the way one chooses? Sure, as you say, "within limits." They're very 2nd Amendment. Freedom of religion, particularly for Christians. Given what you've said before, surely limited restrictions on vaccine mandates, etc. But this is the party that also supports the right to deny people rights based on how they self-express, too. I'm surprised if you give the right a "passing grade," and leave the left to "doesn't give a shit," based on what I said above.

As to your second point, you say that the left "doesn't really work" for it. Who gave us the Affordable Care Act? Who pushes for WIC, food stamps , welfare programs, Medicare and Medicaid protection in the budget? NYC has a right-to-shelter law, brought in under Democratic Mayor Ed Koch in 1981.

You are correct to say that the right is utterly resistant to these and like benefits.

 

[Kieran]

No one denied the election results in 2016, however close and surprising. It wasn't even contested like Bush v. Gore. I'm not sure where you get that from? Also, not sure what "peaceably rioted" even means. There was a women's March in Washington the day after the inauguration. And yes, it was peaceful.

I see it irritates you that Fiero made assumptions about what you think or support. Since you don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, maybe you'll stop doing it.

Ah ha, but the Fiero assumed I’m American, for crying out loud. How could he not know?

Here’s Hillary 3 years later still denying that Trump was legitimately elected. Here she is claiming it was stolen. Here’s Democrats objecting to the legitimacy of that election, and others. This is a funny Jimmy Dore compilation of many Democrats, including Hillary and her daughter, denying elections, including 2016. These things aren’t difficult to find.

The Women’s March, God bless them, was peaceful. Wiki has a page dedicated to the protests, describing some, in classic CNN-speak, as ‘mostly peaceful’. These have citations, Wiki not being a generally reliable source, but for convenience I’ll place it there, because you know that rioting occurred in Oakland, Portland, Chicago, etc. Here’s CNN.

An anti-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon, revved up as protesters confronted police Thursday night. What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent.

Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said.

Portland. I know, a beacon of liberal tolerance.

Reuters, on violence in Washington on Trump’s inaugural day. “At least 217 people were arrested in the melees, police said.”

 

[Kieran]

I'm rather surprised you got a "like" from Kieran on this, as he's not actually an advocate of "self-definition," nor of medical treatments for things that included them. There has been a lot of push-back on this thread, and others, that folks be able to "self-define."

Can somebody self-define as something they’re plainly not? They’re free to. But I’m opposed to them then forcing the rest of us to also believe their self-definition. In fact, by the rules of their game, they have autonomy over how they define themselves, so we also have the same autonomy over how we define them.

I’m implacably opposed to the idea that children can self-define and the consequences of this then leading to their abuse. And often the parents aren’t even told this is happening. That’s totally wrong.

As for medical procedures, if a man wants to lop his goods off, and pay for it himself, who am I to complain? I think he’s nuts, I think he’s been let down by everybody, but he’s free to choose that. But they also do medical procedures on children who have supposedly self identified, and of course I’m opposed to that..

 

[Federberg]

For myself, I agree that folks should live the way they chose, as long as they don't harm others. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If you're seeking an abortion, in a free society, that should be your right, and you should have access to it.

here's an interesting question that was posed to me... if a pregnant woman, who is in her 4th month, is murdered in a State that says it's legal to abort up until the 6th month, is the murderer guilty of killing one person or two? I wonder if anyone has tested that in a court of law yet...

 

[Fiero425]

Ah ha, but the Fiero assumed I’m American, for crying out loud. How could he not know?

Here’s Hillary 3 years later still denying that Trump was legitimately elected. Here she is claiming it was stolen. Here’s Democrats objecting to the legitimacy of that election, and others. This is a funny Jimmy Dore compilation of many Democrats, including Hillary and her daughter, denying elections, including 2016. These things aren’t difficult to find.

The Women’s March, God bless them, was peaceful. Wiki has a page dedicated to the protests, describing some, in classic CNN-speak, as ‘mostly peaceful’. These have citations, Wiki not being a generally reliable source, but for convenience I’ll place it there, because you know that rioting occurred in Oakland, Portland, Chicago, etc. Here’s CNN.



Portland. I know, a beacon of liberal tolerance.

Reuters, on violence in Washington on Trump’s inaugural day. “At least 217 people were arrested in the melees, police said.”

I knew, but didn't care you're not American! It's a lot of ways Hillary was robbed! You had Republicans doing everything in their power to discredit her! They even resorted to making up $#!t! Supposedly she and Bill were running child porn operation out of a DC pizza parlor! You had Comey and his FBI cronies not only investigating her, they had press conferences about it! That was unprecedented! Trump was under investigation, but they told the country that would be political to mention it during the election process! I could go on, but ceased giving AF years ago! It's just not worth caring about it anymore! FK. all of us! If the country & world is so easily fooled by the worst of us, we deserve to go down in flames!

 

[Kieran]

I knew, but didn't care you're not American!

Well sorry but you ‘cared’ enough to say this: ‘Maybe, but I'll put our deplorables up against yours anytime! We're not shooting up clinics, murdering doctors, putting targets on families of judges, etc.’

You were talking to an American there, you thought. None of that has anything to do with me..

 

[Fiero425]

Well sorry but you ‘cared’ enough to say this: ‘Maybe, but I'll put our deplorables up against yours anytime! We're not shooting up clinics, murdering doctors, putting targets on families of judges, etc.’

You were talking to an American there, you thought. None of that has anything to do with me..

It appeared to me you were only criticizing one side so that made you part of the problem regardless of your country of origon! Those Brexit a-#oles invaded the States so I figured you were one of them; conservative and not thinking of the repercussions of your support!

 

[Kieran]

It appeared to me you were only criticizing one side so that made you part of the problem regardless of your country of origon! Those Brexit a-#oles invaded the States so I figured you were one of them; conservative and not thinking of the repercussions of your support!

I’m Irish. Brexit is nothing to do with Ireland. And they didn’t invade your country. You ought to look at your own side to see why Hillary lost. What’s wrong with your side is that you don’t criticise your own bad ideas.

And yes, the culture war has been won by the left but they haven’t stopped fighting. That’s why I criticise that side. The other side are probably no better but they’re not making drastic institutional changes everywhere, through force. Tell me, who hasn’t got rights today, in the west? Everybody has rights today. The minority have more rights than the majority, it seems. And because your side hasn’t stopped fighting we’re now in the realm of where they try to normalise lies and anti-science ahistorical junk thought, in the name of ‘social justice’.

They’re dismantling the west, though it’s the only place that gives these loons a platform. You really ought to be criticising them too. If they don’t know what a woman is, how can they protect women’s rights? How can they govern?

They can’t…

 

[El Dude]

I don't understand what "hurt feelings" can possibly have to do with anything. They certainly can't be legislated for/against. I would argue that the limits of self-expression aren't hurt feelings. In this country, they don't even extend to hate speech. The ACLU has defended the KKK, on freedom of speech grounds. Things you can't say legally in Germany, for example, you can say here. Folks make a lot of lack of free speech in the US, but I think folks confuse social media with actual law.

Yes, free speech is still better in the US than in many places, including Germany. But we also have hate speech laws that can and are used to censor divergent views, as well as issues around censorship, "misinformation," cancellation, etc. The whole mis/dis/mal-information is a big one, and one that so-called progressive heroes like AOC cheer for. The government and media are quick to accuse non-sanctioned views as mis/dis/mal, but rarely (if ever) correct themselves.

I'm rather surprised you got a "like" from Kieran on this, as he's not actually an advocate of "self-definition," nor of medical treatments for things that included them. There has been a lot of push-back on this thread, and others, that folks be able to "self-define."

For myself, I agree that folks should live the way they chose, as long as they don't harm others. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If you're seeking an abortion, in a free society, that should be your right, and you should have access to it. If your notion that people having access to medical treatment includes trans people, based on your comment about "freedom to self-define," I'll wait until some realize that's what you said.

I fully support trans people to self-define as they want -- to be trans, to live as they choose, etc. But it isn't a blanket, "whatever the most radical trans activists say is gospel truth, because it is the Latest Thing and as a good leftie I agree with it wholeheartedly." For example, I don't think biological men have the right to participate in women's sports, because they're not biological women - regardless of what they claim. I don't think we should be so quick to offer "trans-affirming healthcare" to children, let alone be paid for by American tax-payers. Nor do I think "mis-gendering" someone should be considered hate speech or be prosecutable. Etc.

In other words, self-definition is one thing, but asking the whole world to re-arrange itself around what you want to believe about yourself is quite another. As has often been the case, in its rush to be the liberal savior to the latest focused group of oppression, the Left may actually be doing more harm than good. This doesn't mean I agree with the right, btw -- and really, that's one of my main overarching points: the idea that we have to pick team Blue or Red on every single issue, and thereby feed the endless "culture war" which ultimately serves the ruling class through dividing the people.

100%.

Here is where you lose me. You don't think that the left (I'll assume you mean Democrats) care about individual freedom to self-define? You don't think the left cares about the right to live however you chose? Who supported gay marriage? And which party pushed for healthcare, and continues to support the right to choose on abortion, and advocates for women's access to affordable healthcare?

At the same time, you say the right (I'll assume you mean Republicans) care about "the first," meaning which part? Individual freedom to self-define? I'm surprised if you think so. To live in the way one chooses? Sure, as you say, "within limits." They're very 2nd Amendment. Freedom of religion, particularly for Christians. Given what you've said before, surely limited restrictions on vaccine mandates, etc. But this is the party that also supports the right to deny people rights based on how they self-express, too. I'm surprised if you give the right a "passing grade," and leave the left to "doesn't give a shit," based on what I said above.

As to your second point, you say that the left "doesn't really work" for it. Who gave us the Affordable Care Act? Who pushes for WIC, food stamps , welfare programs, Medicare and Medicaid protection in the budget? NYC has a right-to-shelter law, brought in under Democratic Mayor Ed Koch in 1981.

You are correct to say that the right is utterly resistant to these and like benefits.

Yes, I get it. You think the left is good, the right is bad. I used to think that way too, or at least that the left (Democrats) were the "lesser of two evils." My view has changed over the last 6-7 years...now I hate them all. Haha.

Note that Democrats only supported gay marriage when it became politically expedient to do so. Obama started off as (supposedly) against gay marriage, but when the political tide turned, he "changed" his view.

Note also that the Democrats were much more loudly calling for vaccine mandates --that is, forced medical treatments (or societal exile and restriction if you didn't comply). Democrats have also been more strongly for governmental censorship and oversight. Oh, and who exactly is building that wall? Etc, etc.

I don't give the right a passing grade, though have found some of them better over the last few years on some of the issues mentioned. In that regard, I speak as someone who is deeply disappointed with the "progressive movement" that I used to align with.

You cite things that Democrats have fought for in the past. I think there's a big difference between the Democratic Party of 40+ years ago and the one we have today. What I have found is that, time and time again, when push comes to shove, the establishment left doesn't really fight for the things that really matter. Like Medicare for All. Sure, they give the appearance of "pushing for" some things, but to what degree do they really fight? Nancy Pelosi is infamous for blocking MfA, time and time again. And the Fraud Squad never really fought for it, or use their leverage to push it to the floor when they could have. And none of these people said anything in support of unvaccinated folks, and most them go right along with whatever arena of war the neocons are focused on.

So to be clear, if I haven't been clear already, I'm not a post-left person who has turned to the right. I hate both establishment parties, which I see as two wings of the uni-party that serves the ruling class. The one credit I'll give the Republicans is that they're more honest - they tell you what they're about. Democrats are more deceptive; they say one thing, but usually do nothing at all or even the opposite. So my view is that both establishment parties are corrupt and rotten beyond repair. A pox on both their houses!