Why Can't The Left Win?

[Cloud_Strife]

quite the opposite, which is why we have 8 hour work days, women voting, civil rights, etc....do you do realize that you are portraying yourself as unreasonable? Of course not, it's everyone else...

And moderates have had no problems watering these down in an attempt to placate the right, so give us a break with the disengenuousness eh?

 

[Farm Boy]

you're the enemy.

Heresy vs heathenism.

 

[sophie]

I guess I'm simply trying to say that moderates sometimes agree with the left on issues and sometimes agree with the right on issues. It doesn't mean we're always in the middle. Sometime we take a path down the middle but it depends on the issue. And yeah. sometimes I get the impression there there is some hive mentality where if you don't agree with every single issue from one side, you're the enemy. More so from the right but the left can be like that also. Every issues should be looked at separately and not through the partisan lens. But no matter how I try to define it, someone will think it means something else.

And in this you're committing fallacious reasoning on two sides. The first is in assuming that non-moderates don't take each issue in kind and examine it carefully irrespective of some imagined manifesto. I mean I can't speak for the right, and I can't speak for all Leftists, but certainly speaking for myself and other Leftists I know, we do do that. My political convictions are the result of many years thinking very carefully about these issues. Frankly, it's profoundly insulting to hear you characterize the political convictions of vast swathes of the populace as akin to automatons thoughtlessly reproducing a credo rather than, y'know, actual people with thoughts and feelings and sincerely held and carefully considered beliefs. It comes across as a variant of that pernicious Alt-Right NPC meme.

The second is in presupposing that in contradistinction to others' "partisan lens" through which all political data is distilled and interpreted, your views are the result of pure, rational, objective thought, free of political bias. You have a lens. You have an ideology. You filter received data through the lens and output a biased, political, partisan viewpoint. You might have very good reasons for coming to the political conclusions that you have arrived at, but that doesn't intrinsically make them objective or apolitical. And the problem with assuming nonpartisanship or apoliticality is that you are putting up blinders to the base assumptions on which your ideological framework rests.

 

[rah]

Frankly, it's profoundly insulting to hear you characterize the political convictions of vast swathes of the populace as akin to automatons thoughtlessly reproducing a credo rather than, y'know, actual people with thoughts and feelings and sincerely held and carefully considered beliefs. It comes across as a variant of that pernicious Alt-Right NPC meme.

I didn't quite say that. I said I think there are "SOME" like that. More so on the right.

And I don't really care how people get there, that's their own issue. My discussion comes from the classification. Which I've admitted is a tough definition.
I claim I'm a moderate and people here seem to think it means something different than I do. People are going to claim their own definition and I can't do anything about it. And again, maybe neither right no left is a better one. Or Independent. I'm a heck of a lot more unsure about it than a few days agos

 

[Synobun]

People are taking it differently because you're trying to argue that moderates are the swing vote in matters of morality and should be respected as such, complete with agendas to convince the moderate to fight for someone else's rights. This by itself can be argued, but then you go on to say that you're willing to sacrifice that fight if it means a better budget or some other form of personal gain. You're making the explicit point that social progress is less important than money, which corrupts your initial argument that moderates are allies.

It corrupts your initial argument because it no longer puts a moderate in the position of ally, it puts a moderate in the position of convenience. You'll help people fight for their rights so long as it's convenient to your bottom line. This largely resonates with the right wing and not as much with the left. Then, it can't be too much of a surprise if you're treated more like you're on the right instead of the left. You made it clear that you are interested in left-aligned policies only so long as they don't impact you, and that you're willing to bargain with other people's lives the moment they do.

You marched for gay rights. Awesome. Now you're willing to usher in a party that loves conversion therapy and limiting the rights of queer people. Why? Because of the budget. You're willing to throw away your "marching for gay rights" because of a balance sheet. The people you supposedly fought for have become secondary, meaningless, in the face of the almighty dollar.

This is why "moderates" are labelled as fence-sitters. They go to the side that is most convenient, and switch the second the wind shifts. You are an ally for as long as being an ally benefits you. Once it no longer does, you couldn't care less about the fight. Why should those solidly on the left be enthralled with the pursuit of the moderate's support when the moderate's support is unreliable and wont to shift at a moment's notice?

 

[rah]

People are taking it differently because you're trying to argue that moderates are the swing vote in matters of morality and should be respected as such, complete with agendas to convince the moderate to fight for someone else's rights.

You guys read to much into my comments. Maybe I am not clear.
The left doesn't have a clear majority, the right doesn't have the clear majority. Which way the center leans will usually create the coalition needed to enact. So you probably shouldn't go out of your way to piss them off. Don't read anything else into it. Especially morality. (since morality is usually defined by the majority and changes over time depending on who is the majority)

 

[Farm Boy]

Effective governance splits loyalties unless somebody is actually so scripted as to pick allies by party line, then shift them when the party line changes. Which would be pretty dumb. And for which the defense is generally a variation of the tried and true, can't see 'em can't worry about 'em. Which is to an extent unavoidable.

Some moderates, of course, vote according to whose oxen they want gored. They blend in that well, at least.

 

[Synobun]

You guys read to much into my comments. Maybe I am not clear.
The left doesn't have a clear majority, the right doesn't have the clear majority. Which way the center leans will usually create the coalition needed to enact. So you probably shouldn't go out of your way to piss them off. Don't read anything else into it. Especially morality. (since morality is usually defined by the majority and changes over time depending on who is the majority)

Ah, moral relativism. A quaint way of copping out. Only the best people seriously try to argue, "Well, hold on, are we really sure that gay people deserve full rights? I mean, if the majority doesn't think so..."

 

[rah]

So who gets to judge what is moral?

 

[Synobun]

So who gets to judge what is moral?

It's really very simple. Do your beliefs put entire demographics in a position of lesser value compared to another? If yes, immoral. This is not a complicated idea, or worthy of much philosophical thought. An individual is an individual is an individual, regardless of skin colour, biological sex, identified gender, preferred sexual orientation, and so on. If you are trying to argue they are not, then you are wrong. There is no thought equation that can seriously, seriously make an argument that someone is worth less than another because they aren't white, or they aren't straight, or they aren't men, or...

ETA: It's honestly kind of gross that you're defending your choice to betray people's rights and their fight to have them by copping the moral relativism angle.

 

[sophie]

So who gets to judge what is moral?

I mean, this question rests at the center of three distinct philosophical disciplines with debates going back 2500 years at this point.

 

[rah]

So you are the ultimate judge of morality? I don't buy that.
And please show where I betrayed peoples rights.

 

[Farm Boy]

Definiiiiitional.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Hey Rah, do you not find it perhaps uncomfortable, even in your own mind, that you are willing to sacrifice minorities and other groups by voting in the same exact people that time and time again, historically, DEMONSTRABLY have caused them harm? It's gross, it's disgusting and shows to me that you value certain things (in this case the economy) over others and it makes your previous words look hollow.

And please show where I betrayed peoples rights.

You betray their rights when you vote for a party that seeks to harm them, unfortunately no matter your intentions you are enabling an existential threat and let me be clear here; you wouldn't tolerate me doing the same to you and yours and so i won't tolerate anyone else doing it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Remember, people can be convinced. Morality is hard to explain, but if you actually do have a strong moral foundation that's correct, then it will be convincing. You might not be able to convince people to adopt it, since we're weak. But you should be able to convince people you're correct.

I will point out, again, that if other people's moral frameworks are mostly incomprehensible to you, then there are strong odds that you're missing key components in yours. You'll fail to convince, but then blame others for not understanding.

I mean, my bugaboo is that people should be eating drastically less meat. I think we should stop socially rewarding people for eating too much meat. I think that 'eating less meat' is the morally correct answer from a variety of angles. I might not be able to get people to actually eat less meat, because we're hedonistic creatures. But the idea that we should will have to propagate through society at a pace determined by people's ability to convince.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I just want to understand this; would you, @rah or indeed anyone else, tolerate me actively working against your interests and making things less safe for you via voting in people who have shown themselves willing to discriminate against you? What about if i voted for people who thought you were less than human and that you should be put into a psych ward and subjected to reparative therapy until you become "normal".

If the answer is "no" then why should minorities and why is it unreasonable for people to point this out to moderates who, time and time again, continue to compromise with the oppressors?

There's a level of disconnect in this discussion, we're not talking about some hypothetical, we're talking about real life here and if you, in anyway, enable the GOP you own the consequences that result from it and if you can't handle that, then my advice is to not vote for them, regardless of your reasoning.

 

[rah]

You betray their rights when you vote for a party that seeks to harm them, unfortunately no matter your intentions you are enabling an existential threat and let me be clear here; you wouldn't tolerate me doing the same to you and yours and so i won't tolerate anyone else doing it.

I have stopped voting for Republicans at the federal level for just that reason so I don't know what you're talking about.
If I vote for an occasional one at the local level I don't feel that's betraying anyone. Especially when I have reasonable assurance that they aren't racist or anti gay.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not asking you to do any convincing, you're not interested. And that's a different thread.
All that I am saying is that the key to actually winning is 'convincing'. You're trying to straddle the line between encouraging your allies to be more proactive and not alienating them at the same time. I know that issue, because it's hard. But you cannot forget what the end-goal is.

tolerate me actively working against your interests and making things less safe for you

Look upthread, it's why I mentioned meat-eating. There are many dimensions along which me failing to convince means that 'things are less safe'. Now, I can get mad that people fail to take my concerns seriously enough to actually change their behaviour, or to change the behaviour of those in power. But strategically, I need to know that castigating potential allies is a delicate task.

 

[Synobun]

So you are the ultimate judge of morality? I don't buy that.
And please show where I betrayed peoples rights.

Please, regale us with your arguments for why some people are worth less than others. Since you are eager to mention moral relativism in the face of minority rights, surely you have something compelling to support their being lesser. (But also, don't. C'mon, dude. You can't pat yourself on the back for marching and then say things like this.)

Regarding the second, you plan on voting Republican in your state elections, no? And you plan on doing this in light of State Democrats who are dropping the ball financially? The Republicans are rather monolithic these days. Perhaps the individual you're voting for is fine, but recent history has shown this to be irrelevant. Local-level Republicans are controlled by federal/national interests to a hilariously transparent extent. Your "nice local Republican," the moment they're in power, will kowtow to the party line not because they believe in it but because they have no choice.

 

[aelf]

I mean, this question rests at the center of three distinct philosophical disciplines with debates going back 2500 years at this point.

Well, you can't talk about ethics to business people.