Left or Right of me.

[Timsup2nothin]

And for what it is worth, there are at least 5-6 other semi-regulars who haven't posted in this thread yet that I would put on the right of you which would balance it out a bit.

I find this interesting, particularly since one of the people posted to the right of Rah also did not participate they were just the obviously designated pole on that side.

 

[rah]

I refuse to believe that people don't want to proclaim being on the right when their posts scream it out. Even independents can be right leaning. But then that was another aspect of this experiment.

 

[Lexicus]

In my experience on the internet, people on the right expend far more time and energy denying their political affiliations than people on the left. People on the left seem by and large content to just say they are somewhere on the left, whereas I think you have to go pretty far right before people stop pretending to be "centrists".

 

[rah]

I think that depends on the site you're on. This place is pretty left leaning so to be outright on the right provokes a negative response. It's no wonder some people would want to minimize that. On other sites you might find less reluctance to admit it.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that depends on the site you're on. This place is pretty left leaning so to be outright on the right provokes a negative response. It's no wonder some people would want to minimize that. On other sites you might find less reluctance to admit it.

That observation is not confined to this site.

 

[rah]

Yeah, I believe that overall the internet leans left. Not to say there aren't exceptions.

 

[Hrothbern]

Are you implying that we should consider people something bought? I don't think that comparison holds here.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that medicare for all is common sense, but then I'm left on that issue.
Many on the right do not consider it so.

Well... if I look back at the origin of the national health institutions: they did start (in my country and many others) with minimising contagious diseases. TBC, typhus, the measles, whatever. Diseases that could spread among the poor people and the epidemy would not miss the rich people. Segregation in housing was not adequate in protection.
Education similar. Having a good enough filter in place to catch the talented (whether for craftsmen or "higher up"^), was a well-understood self-interest for the nation-states needing growth and economical progress from techs for more power. Spending the money to educate them (investment) encouraging protection of that investment.
Etc, etc. The lofty goals and principles on the charity banners.... if you read the minutes of governments of around 1900... it is all quite illuminating.

So yes I throw in... boommm.. a provocative angle to look at it outside the usual left-right.
At the risk ofc that I will be seen as inhuman or so... but I know, at least for myself, that that does not apply.

If a certain policy is desirable from pure common sense. What is then the value, the principle to put it in your banner to strive for ?
In the case of the US: because the "right" has the policy not to allow it despite that policy being the common sense.
Which forces "the left" to defending a common sense policy.

But that as such, intrinsically, makes striving for a national health care not left.
Where difference to common sense can occur is how much care you want for older people no longer participating in the labor process, or the disabled etc.
But even there... how much of that "wanting" is coming from general social values (not exclusively left), how much from "I or someone close can have bad luck" (insurance principle by the nanny state, in the US I guess a left right topic)... and how much is coming from social studies indicating that people are more productive when they feel secured (the pure common sense factor that differs ofc per culture re the need to feel secured).
Yes... money related to human life is a kind of "wrong" approach. But how is the decision made in a national health care country to give someone with a lethal disease expensive medicins ? In the UK the cap is by rule of thumb somewhere $40,000 per year medicins for every year longer life. And I guess/hope that parents of young children get a higher allowance.

The basic problem I see for the left is that it is, in our current time frame, in the defending position of defending common sense policies (that Medicare just an example).
The right is apparently sucesful in having faith based slogans in conflict with common sense. All over the place.And it works @#$%
And faith is so much easier to sell than complicated arguments from the left on this topic.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Yeah, I believe that overall the internet leans left. Not to say there aren't exceptions

The internet appears to lean left due to America as a whole having a screwed up definition of left-right and trying to apply their flawed notions to other people which results in this nonsense.

The other thing is that far right trolls are terrible at staying unbanned because all they do is meme. Meme'ing in general, due to appealing to the lowest common denominator and is a substitute for actual wit tends to make people dumber, though this is true of political discussion in general. And despite their attempts to normalize blatant racism, hasn't really worked outside the US that well either.... yet.

"In b4 liberal media bias?" Well, why hasn't the right leaning media just picked itself by its bootstraps and simply work harder like they always tell poor people to do? I mean, if they're not doing good, it's because God decided they weren't doing the right thing. (Actually I guess they have, but I'm not sure if Breibart really represents the dream)

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yeah, I believe that overall the internet leans left. Not to say there aren't exceptions.

Really? Its the far/alt rights main platform.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In my experience on the internet, people on the right expend far more time and energy denying their political affiliations than people on the left. People on the left seem by and large content to just say they are somewhere on the left, whereas I think you have to go pretty far right before people stop pretending to be "centrists".

As evidenced by what we all seem to agree upon as our extreme right milepost being number one most likely to falsely claim that he is an "independent" and most willing to say that the only reason he is the milepost is because EVERYONE else is a left wing extremist including me and presumably Rah.

 

[rah]

Well... if I look back at the origin of the national health institutions: they did start (in my country and many others) with minimising contagious diseases. TBC, typhus, the measles, whatever. Diseases that could spread among the poor people and the epidemy would not miss the rich people. Segregation in housing was not adequate in protection.
Education similar. Having a good enough filter in place to catch the talented (whether for craftsmen or "higher up"^), was a well-understood self-interest for the nation-states needing growth and economical progress from techs for more power. Spending the money to educate them (investment) encouraging protection of that investment.
Etc, etc. The lofty goals and principles on the charity banners.... if you read the minutes of governments of around 1900... it is all quite illuminating.

So yes I throw in... boommm.. a provocative angle to look at it outside the usual left-right.
At the risk ofc that I will be seen as inhuman or so... but I know, at least for myself, that that does not apply.

If a certain policy is desirable from pure common sense. What is then the value, the principle to put it in your banner to strive for ?
In the case of the US: because the "right" has the policy not to allow it despite that policy being the common sense.
Which forces "the left" to defending a common sense policy.

But that as such, intrinsically, makes striving for a national health care not left.
Where difference to common sense can occur is how much care you want for older people no longer participating in the labor process, or the disabled etc.
But even there... how much of that "wanting" is coming from general social values (not exclusively left), how much from "I or someone close can have bad luck" (insurance principle by the nanny state, in the US I guess a left right topic)... and how much is coming from social studies indicating that people are more productive when they feel secured (the pure common sense factor that differs ofc per culture re the need to feel secured).
Yes... money related to human life is a kind of "wrong" approach. But how is the decision made in a national health care country to give someone with a lethal disease expensive medicins ? In the UK the cap is by rule of thumb somewhere $40,000 per year medicins for every year longer life. And I guess/hope that parents of young children get a higher allowance.

The basic problem I see for the left is that it is, in our current time frame, in the defending position of defending common sense policies (that Medicare just an example).
The right is apparently sucesful in having faith based slogans in conflict with common sense. All over the place.And it works @#$%
And faith is so much easier to sell than complicated arguments from the left on this topic.

As implied in my sig, facts will not sway those that "believe."

 

[Hrothbern]

As implied in my sig, facts will not sway those that "believe."

haha
I can only agree !

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Really? Its the far/alt rights main platform.

It's probably also the main avenue through which paedophiles keep in touch and distribute material. I wouldn't claim that's represenative of a bias of the internet in general though.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It's probably also the main avenue through which paedophiles keep in touch and distribute material. I wouldn't claim that's represenative of a bias of the internet in general though.

No but I seem to find a lot more sites that I'd consider rightwing when following links. Also a lot of forums like reddit and ***** are pretty rightwing and even on liberal newspaper sites like the Guardian the readers comments seem dominated by aggressive rightwingers. Twitter seems dominated by the trendy left though.

 

[Archon_Wing]

even on liberal newspaper sites like the Guardian the readers comments seem dominated by aggressive rightwingers.

I have a feeling they're Russian bots. But just a guess.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No but I seem to find a lot more sites that I'd consider rightwing when following links. Also a lot of forums like reddit and ***** are pretty rightwing and even on liberal newspaper sites like the Guardian the readers comments seem dominated by aggressive rightwingers. Twitter seems dominated by the trendy left though.

I was going to say that it certainly seems to me that there is a general leftward bias, but I think that opinion is probably strongly influence by Twitter. The only time I even find myself on reddit is when I google some obscure technical problem and find a thread about it on there, so I can't really comment on that.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I have a feeling they're Russian bots. But just a guess.

Quite possible.

I was going to say that it certainly seems to me that there is a general leftward bias, but I think that opinion is probably strongly influence by Twitter. The only time I even find myself on reddit is when I google some obscure technical problem and find a thread about it on there, so I can't really comment on that.

I'm sure my own bias affects my opinion on this. I wouldn't consider this site left-wing. Centre-left/liberal maybe.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Maybe just restrict this thread to 'murcans so at least apples can be compared to other apples.

I don't think that would give it better predictive value so might as well have everyone who wants to participate do so .

 

[inthesomeday]

In general it is mostly right-wing. The ideology of anti-SJWism is in my experience the status quo on most of the largest online platforms

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The internet is dominated by ranting, and in large part the "right wing position" is formulated on outrage. The progressive wants change, and that breeds a certain contempt for the status quo, but just ranting against the status quo is too nebulous to be effective support for change. The conservative wants things to stay the same, or revert to "the good old days." Outraged ranting against change...any change...is specific argument in favor of their position. That's why the right dominated talk radio, and it is reflected on the internet.