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.

Two Tone

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. 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.

Just wondering about your inclusion of the nazis: I know they were "national socialism" in name but they/fascism were surely right-wing?

Zebra3

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Being left of extreme rightists means you can still be right-wing as those Irish parties are.

El_Duderino 09

Sand wrote:

True, I often seem descriptions of 'the right' that lump a random assortment of groups together with little or no common views or ideology, united only in that the person describing 'the right' dislikes them all. It takes some torturous logic to see the views of Libertarians and the Nationalist Socialists as being in anyway comparable or variations of each other.

Some twisted logic to lump them together like they would tend to vote for the same candidates and political parties?

Wibbs

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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/

The second I see the terms "big government" "fascism" and "liberals" in the same sentence and it's coming from the US, where paranoia is their national sport(insecurity is ours), I can be almost positive what follows is clickbait wankerism of the highest quality.

However...

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.

This I am far more in agreement with. Generally speaking and as history has shown, cuddles need to be backed up with guns. Any utopia, any society worth fighting for, well... needs to be fought for. Western "liberal" thought doesn't like this ugly truth.

Now this is where it gets weird for me. Normally I see one of Sand's posts and I get a Being John Malkovich moment cos the bastard is in my head.

but...

Sand wrote: »

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.

That in itself is a "utopia" S and when taken to Libertarian levels just as delusional a one. That politic imagines a utopia where "big government" doesn't exist, government does as little as possible, the free market is king and we can all be left alone to be John Galts, running wild on the prairies, doing our own thing, so long as it doesn't impinge on others. That's just as dopey an idea as the loony lefties ideas. People intrinsically know this, hence just like the loony left their support base is tiny. What would happen in such a utopia is that with minimal oversight, where the more stuff you have, the more power you wield; the bully boys, the robber barons, would rapidly take power. It would be "fascism" in result if not in stated policy.

Oh and by the by, I'm not one of those "more government please" types, but there is too much and too little of a good thing. The Left want the former, the Right want the latter, the sensible try to find the middle level, where as much of society as possible benefits.

[Deleted User]

I wouldn't describe a some of the people who post on AH and describe themselves as right wing as being right wing, the posts trends to be mishmash of ill informed myths and prejudice for example

The employment rate of lone parents (aged 15-64) whose youngest child was aged 0 to 5 years was 42.0% in Q2 2015 compared to 49.7% where the youngest child was aged 6 to 11 and 63.2% where the youngest child was aged 12 to 17. This indicates that, as children get older, the prohibitive costs of childcare are reduced and lone parents are more likely to engage in work

Source: CSO-QNHS available here.

Now as far as I am concerned everyone should be working to support themselves.

The interesting point is that some who post and describe themselves as right wing want to be believer that all or most lone parents do not work in other works and live off the state, they want to believer their own prejudice instead of the evidence and that has nothing to do with political views.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on right wing politics.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditions2014/

allibastor

Problem with Left wing and Right wing is just that, they are so polar on opinions that neither want to see the other viewpoint.

Immigration is not a race issue, but if you have some who start with the lines of "the blacks are ruining our water" or " the "the polish took our jobs" it is getting back.

Generally saying that issue exist isnt enough to be called Racist. it is pointing out a fact, people on the left say your racist for saying it, people on the right say you are being too soft. A good common sense mix in all things in life should kick in, but never does.

Deise Vu

The answer to the question posed is when the so-called right winger points out the total contradiction in the immovable objects of left wing views that All Muslims are Great and Travellers are Even Better meet the immovable object of Women are Better Than Men.

As the left winger cannot reconcile these views when it is pointed out that the first two groups aren't the greatest fans of women, it is necessary to go for the nuclear option of throwing out the race card against anyone making this perfectly reasonable point.

It can also be used when immigrants behave badly or terrorists hide among them and someone suggests that stricter vetting might be a good idea.

All in all its a game stopper of an argument when you know you can't win the argument.

[Deleted User]

allibastor wrote: »

Problem with Left wing and Right wing is just that, they are so polar on opinions that neither want to see the other viewpoint.

Immigration is not a race issue, but if you have some who start with the lines of "the blacks are ruining our water" or " the "the polish took our jobs" it is getting back.

Generally saying that issue exist isnt enough to be called Racist. it is pointing out a fact, people on the left say your racist for saying it, people on the right say you are being too soft. A good common sense mix in all things in life should kick in, but never does.

Immigration is not a race issue in and off itself, and having an opinion on immigration does not make you racist or xenophobic as long as your opinion is evidenced and fact based.

The problem is the sort of people the issue attracts it is like Velcro till eventual you end up with people like Anders Behring Breivik.

jimgoose

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

I think you meant couscous. We're not animals!

Couscous, is it? Conducting your private business as you see fit like some sort of respectable free citizen? Is that the game?? Well, we'll see about that miladdo!!

steddyeddy

The biggest problem with left and right is how ill defined they are. Both terms change depending on historical and geographical setting.

steddyeddy

mariaalice wrote: »

Immigration is not a race issue and having an opinion on immigration does not make you racist or xenophobic as long as your opinion is evidenced and fact based.

The problem is the sort of people the issue attracts it is like Velcro till eventual you end up with people like Anders Behring Breivik.

I believe in controlled immigration but there can be a point where it can be a race issue.

KomradeBishop

The Right isn't about avoiding funding other peoples lifestyles, it's about pretending public finances are more restricted than they really are (except when it comes to tax breaks...), and using moral-hazard based arguments to attack public finances, so that they can push for policies which 'squeeze' the economic pie, so that a greater share of economic gains go to their own self-interested groups, rather than to the rest of society.

This is the most consistent strain of right-wing advocacy, more than any other. Promoting the accelerated increase of wealth/income inequality - while promising the opposite.

Lovely Bloke

What about people who voted yes in the marriage equality referendum, and will vote yes to repeal the 8th amendment, and would likely vote to legalize substances like Cannabis - but who also hold what you would typically call right-wing economic views (like, for example, not providing social welfare at minimum wage levels, or doing away with the whole "welfare society" that sees swathes of the population relying on government help instead of working - and generational attitudes to this, or wanting to control migration).

Are those people left wing, or right wing?

[Deleted User]

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

What about people who voted yes in the marriage equality referendum, and will vote yes to repeal the 8th amendment, and would likely vote to legalize substances like Cannabis - but who also hold what you would typically call right-wing economic views (like, for example, not providing social welfare at minimum wage levels, or doing away with the whole "welfare society" that sees swathes of the population relying on government help instead of working - and generational attitudes to this, or wanting to control migration).

Are those people left wing, or right wing?

Would you not be a libertarian of a sorts?

allibastor

mariaalice wrote: »

Immigration is not a race issue in and off itself, and having an opinion on immigration does not make you racist or xenophobic as long as your opinion is evidenced and fact based.

The problem is the sort of people the issue attracts it is like Velcro till eventual you end up with people like Anders Behring Breivik.

Exactly, but again in the world we live in it is such an easy thing to just shout out terms like "rascist" or what ever when someone disagrees with you.
As said before, many right wingers beleive gay folk should marry, or abortion should be given, many left wingers think the opposite.

The only problem comes from where people cant see the view of the others, I mean, personally as was pointed out before to me here, I dont overly agree with mass immigration. Simple as that. I dont find that we should have to accept everyone or mix every ideal with our own until we dont have one ourselves but have allowed smaller groups within groups to emerge.
That bit is right wing, i imagine.

I also fully believe people should be allowed to marry who makes them happy, regardless (not a child obviously) or within reason do what makes them happy. so long as it isnt a case of shoving your choice in everyones face to make a point. I think we should have welfare for people who need help, as pointed in a thread here about a disable homeless person.

[Deleted User]

allibastor wrote: »

Exactly, but again in the world we live in it is such an easy thing to just shout out terms like "rascist" or what ever when someone disagrees with you.
As said before, many right wingers beleive gay folk should marry, or abortion should be given, many left wingers think the opposite.

The only problem comes from where people cant see the view of the others, I mean, personally as was pointed out before to me here, I dont overly agree with mass immigration. Simple as that. I dont find that we should have to accept everyone or mix every ideal with our own until we dont have one ourselves but have allowed smaller groups within groups to emerge.
That bit is right wing, i imagine.

I also fully believe people should be allowed to marry who makes them happy, regardless (not a child obviously) or within reason do what makes them happy. so long as it isnt a case of shoving your choice in everyones face to make a point. I think we should have welfare for people who need help, as pointed in a thread here about a disable homeless person.

We do not have mass immigration we have free movement with in the EU. There are strict requirement for a work permits for Ireland. Just a point.

allibastor

mariaalice wrote: »

We do not have mass immigration we have free movement with in the EU. There are strict requirement for a work permits for Ireland. Just a point.

Free movement?

Yeah everyone can move to another member state, but many leave countries where there is little to no support to come and access the supports in the host country.
many also come to work, but you dont hear about the extra tax income they bring!

steddyeddy

mariaalice wrote: »

Would you not be a libertarian of a sorts?

I have never heard a consistent libertarian philosophy.

Wibbs

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have never heard a consistent libertarian philosophy.

You can say that about every political philosophy. Just like people themselves political philosophies tend to shift when it suits the movements or individuals involved. This is flexibility a good thing, as it's usually only among extremists of all stripes that you find a hardline consistency.

steddyeddy

As I said in my title "at what point does right wing just mean heartless ect".

I'm not saying those who hold right wing views are heartless I'm asking is there a point at which they become heartless.

For instance I think it's ridiculous to say right wing is simply someone who believes that "people should fund themselves". There's the issue of being able to fund due to circumstance. If I had to state where the line is for me between heartless and right wing it's when someone ignores a person's circumstance and seeks to limit the quality of and access to education, health and food based on a circumstance out of their control.

When is a circumstance out of their control? At birth you have no control over your finances yet some people believe this should dictate the quality of your education, health care ect. That to me isn't right wing it's being a d1ck. Unfortunately I have met people like this in my lifetime.

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

You can say that about every political philosophy. Just like people themselves political philosophies tend to shift when it suits the movements or individuals involved. This is flexibility a good thing, as it's usually only among extremists of all stripes that you find a hardline consistency.

Yes true. Also right and left wing have been used as an insult so many times it's hard to see a defined set of attributes.

steddyeddy

Jayop wrote: »

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.

This exactly and you'll have the same idiots complaining about Aoife's kids despite the fact they inherited a better start in life.

osarusan

Wibbs wrote: »

You can say that about every political philosophy. Just like people themselves political philosophies tend to shift when it suits the movements or individuals involved.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes true. Also right and left wing have been used as an insult so many times it's hard to see a defined set of attributes.

You can see this all over the thread too. In situation X 'a leftie' would do this while 'a rightie' would do that.

As if there is only one action/position to be taken, rather than people having opinions on a range of issues that don't neatly conform to any particular label.

Earthhorse

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

What about people who voted yes in the marriage equality referendum, and will vote yes to repeal the 8th amendment, and would likely vote to legalize substances like Cannabis - but who also hold what you would typically call right-wing economic views (like, for example, not providing social welfare at minimum wage levels, or doing away with the whole "welfare society" that sees swathes of the population relying on government help instead of working - and generational attitudes to this, or wanting to control migration).

Are those people left wing, or right wing?

Without knowing anything further about them I would say they are right wing. The social issues you mention, although traditionally the preserve of the left, have, thanks in large part to the left, essentially become faits accompli in the West. It's true that legalised cannabis is only at the start of its journey but it's easy to imagine it following in the path of gay marriage in the next ten to twenty years. Many right wingers are realists too and so these issues become less contentious (abortion, I think, will always be contentious because there is a complex moral dilemma at its core).

But labelling people right and left is mostly just a game. You could give me a thousand more details about this person and I might call them left. Or ten details even. It's a shame that our political discourse so often gets boiled down to something as simple as handedness.

CruelCoin

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't get on with extreme left or right but would love opinions on the subject.

At what point does Left Wing just mean apologist, money-tree fantasist?

HensVassal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, people on the right will search for any excuse to blame Aoife even if she is solely, partly or absolutely not at all responsible for her predicament.

Right wingers will happily gloat at Aoife the further down the hole she falls and if you suggest getting her some kind of help they will have a shitfit. "How dare someone get a helping hand". Fine, so Aoife is pretty much a waster who could have done a lot better but didn't. But remember very few if any people set out to fail. Aoife will never be successful but is it a huge ask to give her the assistance that might make her life comfortable enough where she might get some confidence to get off her arse and get a job in a shop or warehouse and have some kind of purpose?

Right wingers would deny her that and would happily see her on the street where she would inevitably die younger than she should. They would happily see her kids taken off her and shuffled from foster home to foster home. And when they too inevitably grow up with deep emotional scars and the cycle perpetuates itself and they have received fuck all love and attention and education and wind up in front of a judge, the wise men of the right wing who created the situation will scream "Don't give me that crap that this little scrote had a crappy upbringing!! Throw away the key"

HensVassal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, right-wingers would add to the prostitute's misery by giving her a criminal record. Their mantra is "the beatings will continue until morale improves". It's always about punishment with these assholes.

HensVassal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And this is where the right-wing have it all wrong. A kid from a poor background is no less ambitious than one from a rich background providing both are given encouragement at home and in school. No kid goes to school and says "I can't wait till this is all over so I can get on the dole and get a council house in a crummy neighbourhood and live out the rest of my days as a skid row bum on government handouts". Nobody fucking aspires to that so for the right wing to suggest that providing govenment assistance incentivises idleness and lack of responsible is farcical.

There are plenty of rich kids who would have ended up a lot worse off than our hypothetical Aoife if they didn't have a loaded daddy. A lot of them are as thick as two short planks and lazy as sin and never worked a day in their lives but were bought into college where they drank for four or five years and eventually graduated with some laughable degree in miscellaneous studies and got some no-show job through daddy's connections. Well good for them but these are the very cunts who wouldn't piss on Aoife if she was on fire and would say that they "made it on their own, why can't that lazy bitch Aoife make it?"

[Deleted User]

A person to the left might say that Public policy should aim to provide low cost child care and other social supports so that Aoife can get a job to support herself and her children.