nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

At what point does right wing just mean racist/d1ck/heartless baxtard?

steddyeddy

I currently live in the UK and the headline on every second paper seems to include the word immigrant. All ok in itself but some of the views expressed by people do border on racist.

The same with people who constantly blame tge poor for everything, have zero sympathy for addicts or homeless.

I'm wondering at what stage do we say that rather than being a political inclination some of these views are indicative of unpleasant people? Is it fair to suggest that right wing will always be more of a d1ck than those in the left? I don't get on with extreme left or right but would love opinions on the subject.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HensVassal

Sand wrote: »

To be honest the left are more often violent and aggressive. All people on the right ask are for others to leave them alone, earn your own money and stop trying to tell them what they ought to think.

In my experience right wingers' attitudes to people who find themselves in a predicament that they

would dread being in, but very easily could, is to blame that person for their misfortune. It's as if this kind of cruel lack of empathy will somehow shield them from any kind of bad luck.
You work all your life, save, pay taxes and then lose your pension because some bloodsucker rapes your fund....it's all your fault. You stand up for your rights...you're a commie ne'er do well who should respect the badge and keep your mouth shut, you are a hardworking devoted mother and housewife whose breadwinner of a husband trades you in for a newer model when he hits his midlife crisis...what the fcuk were you thinking having 4 children?

Zebra3

Sand wrote: »

To be honest the left are more often violent and aggressive. All people on the right ask are for others to leave them alone, earn your own money and stop trying to tell them what they ought to think.

Nope, most right-wingers want the system rigged to suit themselves. They proclaim their love of the so-called free market which is actually nothing more than a monopoly of a handful of companies which is deeply regulated and may even be heavily subsidised.

The propaganda in the Irish media is stunning. Even though the Irish left is tiny, look at how often the term is used in the media.

We always have a right-wing majority of TDs in our parliament, yet references to the Irish right are few and far between.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well hopefully they don't get more conservative with age! Seriously yeah, opposition will reduce over time same as civil rights did.

As for Republican politicians staying quietbon it, Cruz was strong anti SSM and Trump declared himself against it as well.

That isn't staying silent on the issue. Trump had no need to take a stand on it if what you say is correct.

El_Duderino 09

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Actually a quick look at these stats shows that thru weighted the sample towards the younger age group to bump up the number. If you took an average of the 4 groups it would be 34% in favour. If you consider that the 18-29 is the narrowest group only takes 13 ages into account and the 30-49 group takes 20 ages into account. Then there should have been less of the younger group represented on the sample, not more.

That bias may be justified by the demographics and age profiles. Could just be shenanigans.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HensVassal

RayM wrote: »

They really aren't. People who oppose racism are never going to be on the same side of the asshole scale as racists.

A "leftie" would try to assist an indebted and indentured prostitute to escape her life of subjugation.

A right winger would blame her for her predicament and consult with the pimp on how to get in on the act for personal gain.

El_Duderino 09

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

I disagree. The ones who want to look at social issues are rarely making out that the person has zero control over their own circumstances.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

We can all agree that Aoife hasn't done a great job with her life. The issue arises when someone suggests that we can all give out about Aoife all day long but it's neither helpful to Aoife or society, so we should look at society to see if we can change something to make this type of thing less common. Que right wing character saying 'you're only making excuses.. you think the perpetrator is the victim'.

There was a great example of all this left right stuff in a thread recently about how to treat drug addiction. The OP insisted that imprisonment was the best solution. Even against all the formal research with places like Portugal treating drugs as a medical issue, and informal examples of the countries that use the justice system to deal with drug addiction. They knew the justice system didn't work and the health approach has much better results, but they couldn't see any other way to deal with drug addiction than to imprison addicts.

One eyed Jack

HensVassal wrote: »

A "leftie" would try to assist an indebted and indentured prostitute to escape her life of subjugation.

A right winger would blame her for her predicament and consult with the pimp on how to get in on the act for personal gain.

I think you absolutely have those two mixed up! But hardly surprising given that so far all I'm reading in this thread is "right wingers, zey hass no empazy" :pac:

Completely ignoring the fact of course that every human being has, or is capable of empathy, and withholding empathy, on the basis of their political ideologies.

Sand

Jayop wrote: »

They want to be left alone and have their own freedoms, providing they can still tell others what to do with their lives and bodies. (generally)

Brian? wrote: »

Oh really. What about the anti abortion stance, which is quite popular among the right?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that were true then the right would be in favour of gay marriage and abortion. Even if they don't agree with those things, they wouldn't want anyone telling anyone else what to do or think.

In reality they wanted to limit everyone's freedom to the things they want for themselves. Back to the drawing board on your hypothesis, I think.

You're confusing (American) Christians and moral conservatives with people on the right. You know all those guys who are non-empathetic and don't care about anyone else? That extends to not caring about what people do with their bodies, who they marry or sleep with. The left has a utopian vision, and they are willing to engage in any form of violence or repression to drag the rest of humanity kicking and screaming (often literally) to that utopia. From the Nazis, the Stalin, to Pol Pot...they all had a dream and others had to be forced to comply with it. They right on the other hand, do not have a utopia - they just want to be left alone as individuals.

Afterall, I am on the right and I happily voted in favour same sex marriage because I do not believe the state or society has any right to prevent two consenting adults from marrying each other. It is their own individual business, no one elses. Back to the drawing board on your hypothesis.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

Peregrine wrote: »

This argument is fundamentally flawed without properly defining what the far left and far right are.

Not only far left or right, just left-wing and right-wing in general. The perceptions they have of themselves and the perceptions of them held by others are clearly quite different.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jayop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You've got two choices when it comes to Aoife. You can say f**k her and her children, they don't work so why should they be handed money and a house paid for by those who do. That's fine and well, and TBH if Aoife didn't have children and never had a job I wouldn't be a fan of giving big hand outs. The problem is though, if you don't give Aoife's children a decent shot at life and a decent chance to do better than their mother then you're going to perpetuate the situation.

I know the come back is that you're perpetuating it by keeping on handing out houses and money but what's the alternative. Let them all go homeless and starve? Just sit idly by while the children with no education or training go into a life of crime or selling their body to get by?

Unfortunately, when it comes to Aoife and her children, there's no right answer, just the least wrong one.

El_Duderino 09

Sand wrote:

You're confusing (American) Christians and moral conservatives with people on the right. You know all those guys who are non-empathetic and don't care about anyone else? That extends to not caring about what people do with their bodies, who they marry or sleep with.

I think that translated pretty soundly to the Irish setting in the case of gay Marriage. I don't have any stats but I imagine the vast majority of people who voted 'no' to gay marriage, would happily consider themselves at least right of centre in the Irish meaning of the term.

Sand wrote:

Afterall, I am on the right and I happily voted in favour same sex marriage because I do not believe the state or society has any right to prevent two consenting adults from marrying each other. It is their own individual business, no one elses. Back to the drawing board on your hypothesis.

You can buck the trend but you don't disprove the hypothesis. Unless the hypothesis was that it's impossible to be on the right and vote for gay marriage - which it isn't.

Back to the drawing board on your philosophy of science, I think.

El_Duderino 09

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

They might. You sound fairly comfortable making that argument.

It depends on how far you want to widen it and what your goals are. If the goal is to facilitate getting really rich in the hope that you will one day become really rich, then you should oppose any tax measure that interferes with that end. If you want to reduce harm and maximise prosperity you might point out that societies with bigger gaps between rich and poor have higher rates of crime and less happy people.

So if lower rates of crime and happiness are your goals, then you might be happy to pay that much in tax if it helped incentives people into lower paid but necessary jobs, rather than just sustain them on benefits.

Like I said, it depends on your desired outcome.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think we both know he decided to become anti-SSM for political reasons, not personal beliefs, IIRC it was during the time he was trying to appeal to the evangelical wing of the Republican base.

But the fact remains that the 2 Republican front runners in the race both had anti-SSM policies. What the also ran candidates stood for, or indeed didn't stand for, is a bit irrelevant.

That's the GOP establishment not listening to its base again, those 61% you linked to who are opposed to SSM.

Clinton and indeed Obama changed their stances on SSM which is fair enough, indeed I would have no problem with Trump changing his except he seems to have gone completely conservative from a liberal in his younger days. Maybe it's a road to Damascus moment!

Sand

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think that translated pretty soundly to the Irish setting in the case of gay Marriage. I don't have any stats but I imagine the vast majority of people who voted 'no' to gay marriage, would happily consider themselves at least right of centre in the Irish meaning of the term.

I'd imagine the vast majority considered themselves Catholics, or some other school of Christianity. Its an ideology which appeals to people on both the right and the left.

You can buck the trend but you don't disprove the hypothesis. Unless the hypothesis was that it's impossible to be on the right and vote for gay marriage - which it isn't.

Actually the hypothesis is that it is perfectly possible, and indeed consistent to consider an individuals own body or their own sexuality to be their own concern and be on the right - which stresses individual rights and freedom *from* the demands of others.

Look at the debate about 'Aoife'; and how a ' "leftie" would try to assist an indebted and indentured prostitute to escape her life of subjugation.'

What's most true there is a leftie would assume a prostitute was indentured, subjugated and needed to be rescued - regardless of what the prostitute thought or felt themselves. 'Aoife's right to her own body would be overruled by well meaning lefties trying to rescue her from her own decisions.

A person on the right, having established 'Aoife' was not subjugated, would respect her own views and get on with the rest of their day - they might approve, they might disapprove but they would respect her own decisions so long as she stayed off their lawn.

Back to the drawing board on your philosophy of science, I think.

Did your own philosophy ever leave a drawing board? Doesn't seem to move past Right= American Christians (how does that travel in China, or India?).

KingBrian2

The problem with any organization be they left or right is to dehumanize their opponents so that you feel less sympathy for them. It is the characteristic of the political landscape for the last few centuries. Terms such as parasite, leeches or other assortment of nasty words like bloody tyrant or whatever all crude expressions for the benefit of the populace. Don't believe half the nonsense you hear.

El_Duderino 09

Sand wrote:

I'd imagine the vast majority considered themselves Catholics, or some other school of Christianity. Its an ideology which appeals to people on both the right and the left.

I was careful not to mention religion. I was afraid you wanted to get list in those weeds. So since you went off talking about religion anyway, could I suggest that you read what I actually said and maybe respond to that instead please?

Sand wrote:

Actually the hypothesis is that it is perfectly possible, and indeed consistent to consider an individuals own body or their own sexuality to be their own concern and be on the right - which stresses individual rights and freedom *from* the demands of others.

That's one hypothesis and I would agree with it. I would refine it and bring it back to my earlier pisition which is that the majority of 'no' voters would be happy to consider themselves right of centre in the Irish context.

To clarify, if this is true it would disprove the hypothesis that the majority of people on the right of centre only want to be left alone and don't want to anyone telling anyone else what to do (I can't remember your original phrasing)

Sand wrote:

A person on the right, having established 'Aoife' was not subjugated, would respect her own views and get on with the rest of their day - they might approve, they might disapprove but they would respect her own decisions so long as she stayed off their lawn.

Sure if that's how you think it works in reality. Do you think more serif described people on the left or the right are cool with prostitution?

Sand wrote:

Did your own philosophy ever leave a drawing board? Doesn't seem to move past Right= American Christians (how does that travel in China, or India?).

You're talking about christians with yourself.

As far as I can remember the research results varied across culture. They had to broaden the statements because of these differences. The bit that did stand up across culture us that those with lower empathy were more likely to favour harsh punishment rather than finding causes and solutions. Whether those countries divided their political lines on those points is another story completely.

That shouldn't be surprising that empathy has such an impact on political leaning. I can't see why it's so difficult to understand.

Rather than snipe at me, why don't you tell me what you think.

[Deleted User]

What exactly is being defined as the right, I would have respect for anyone on the right who has well though out reasons arguments for their politics and no time what so ever for vulgar ranting about welfare, xenophobia and so on.

It is a point that the left is somehow seen to occupier the moral high ground.

K-9

@Sand, when political discussion gets reduced to left and right, context and nuances get lost. People should really stop doing that especially when they complain about others doing it to their own side, instead it seems to be only getting worse.

Two Tone

K-9 wrote: »

@Sand, when political discussion gets reduced to left and right, context and nuances get lost. People should really stop doing that especially when they complain about others doing it to their own side, instead it seems to be only getting worse.

Exactly. I have views that are a mixture of what would be considered liberal and conservative, although I don't know that they are either, they're just my views, what make sense to me.

RDM_83 again

mariaalice wrote: »

It is a point that the left is somehow seen to occupier the moral high ground.

IMO if somebody is very left they presume they are a "good" selfless person, a person further to the "right" presumes they are correct and are more capable but they tend not to deny the fact they act in their own (and family/peer/kin groups) self interest.

In my experience that means that while people with further Right views might be B@stards they are at least honest upfront B@stards, a substantial minority of Far left people use the fact that they are on the good/caring side to hide the fact they are B@stards.
Best way to judge somebody is look at how they interact with somebody they disagree with, a UKIPper who's voting for decreased migration but is polite to their local asian corner shop staff is a better person than the Lefty who damages a shop because of "gentrification" or spits on those who disagree with them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

I would say it is where does you motivation come from for your views that is a big decider, plus tolerance of others views. A fair amount of peoples views both on the left and the right seem to based on a.. believe and you will understand. In other words belief comes before evidence.

Renegade Mechanic

steddyeddy wrote: »

I currently live in the UK and the headline on every second paper seems to include the word immigrant. All ok in itself but some of the views expressed by people do border on racist.

The same with people who constantly blame tge poor for everything, have zero sympathy for addicts or homeless.

I'm wondering at what stage do we say that rather than being a political inclination some of these views are indicative of unpleasant people? Is it fair to suggest that right wing will always be more of a d1ck than those in the left? I don't get on with extreme left or right but would love opinions on the subject.

Have a long hard look at this. How the left operate.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/03/six-years-obamacare-liberals-suddenly-worried-fascism/

Are the right more dickish? Yes. Here's the thing, this little "soft utopia" we've somehow delusioned ourselves into thinking exists, is a very, very small portion of the world.
A portion that as it stands,would very easily be ripped apart by the other 6 billion people living in "reality".
Amazing how the "far right" seem to be the only people that can see that. That can see just how dangerously vulnerable we've become.
Listen closely to this Lebanon woman about what happens to "open arms" people.
https://youtu.be/TvlWPN4Wf5Y

The left need to stop operating on their little feelings and start realising the rest of the world is capable of eating them.

Sweetemotion

Left is losing numbers big time, in every country.

The left went mad with power.

Sweetemotion

RayM wrote: »

I've never encountered a right-wing person who I didn't find very unpleasant and completely incapable of empathy. Whatever the issue, it's like their first instinct is "Ok, what's the most obnoxious opinion I could possibly express right now?" Absolute dicks.

See, bat **** crazy.