Discussion (highly controversial) a question to left winged people

[DoNotLet2]

Hello

Ok it's highly controversial but this question has been bothering me for months.
Of course I don't want to exclude right winged people but their answer is obvious or at least I think so. So please don't insult one another. It's ok that you have different views. You cannot change someone's mind by insulting them.

The question is "do you agree that if someone feels victimized by someone they can attack the alleged oppressor?".

That's the situation. There were trucks spreading hate from the loudspeakers in Poland. Or at least it is said so I never saw such truck. But this hate was really bad and harmful. So a transwoman? (I mean a female in a male body) attacked the truck and the truck driver. So she was arrested by the police because of the beating. The leftists started to defend her "SHE WAS BEING ATTACKED BY THE TRUCK LET HER GO".
I cannot confirm that the situation itself happened but I can confirm the reactions to it as I saw them.
So I'm wondering. Is it normal for left winged people to justify violence and solve violence by violence or are just those guys extremists? Can I beat someone up because they are a bitch to me?
Told you, it's highly controversial.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I'm from California so I'm a bit biased here.

In today's world you can absolutely justify anything and everything even blatant hypocrisy as long as you're on the left. It's the correct side of history. You can't fight it so if it bothers you then the world will move on without you. At least that's how I see it.

 

[NeverGoodEnuff]

The world is moving on without me.

 

[_Kaira_]

The world is moving on without me.

Same. The world does cruel injustices to us all. We will always be our own worst enemies, and both sides will always be at each other's throats. Like petty children fighting, it has become the norm.

 

[cyberlordsumit]

Hello

Ok it's highly controversial but this question has been bothering me for months.
Of course I don't want to exclude right winged people but their answer is obvious or at least I think so. So please don't insult one another. It's ok that you have different views. You cannot change someone's mind by insulting them.

The question is "do you agree that if someone feels victimized by someone they can attack the alleged oppressor?".

That's the situation. There were trucks spreading hate from the loudspeakers in Poland. Or at least it is said so I never saw such truck. But this hate was really bad and harmful. So a transwoman? (I mean a female in a male body) attacked the truck and the truck driver. So she was arrested by the police because of the beating. The leftists started to defend her "SHE WAS BEING ATTACKED BY THE TRUCK LET HER GO".
I cannot confirm that the situation itself happened but I can confirm the reactions to it as I saw them.
So I'm wondering. Is it normal for left winged people to justify violence and solve violence by violence or are just those guys extremists? Can I beat someone up because they are a bitch to me?
Told you, it's highly controversial.

I do not know about left wing and right wing.

These kind of people are everywhere.
Liars, pretenders and Hypocrites.

There's no shortage of them in this world.
Your question can just simply be generalized like "Is that What humans are nowadays?"
(this js just my opinion, peace out)

 

[Deleted member 19654]

It does seem like there is a lot of double standards or hypocrisy within both sides. People don't seem to think that the rules apply to their side of the political spectrum.

Going slightly off topic, but that's the sort of problem I have with the BLM movement. I feel like it started out as a anti-racist movement, speaking out against police brutality etc. but it's evolved into something else. I support the original message but I cannot support a lot of the protests and riots.

You see videos of protestors attacking cars, damaging property, harassing innocent bystanders but it's okay, because they're protesting about black lives matter. If anything, it's turning people away, not gaining more support for the movement.

 

[Panna]

No, that's a slippery slope, and people can feel victimized by Anything. See a bunch of white people eating at a restaurant and no minorities, cue cries of racism because they aren't there, and the innocent people enjoying their dinner are Nazis, lets harass them by telling them how racist they are. More to the point, a speakers having a discussion on a campus about his views peacefully, he's attacking who I identify as, lets pull the fire alarm, lets light a fire outside, lets run inside and vandalize his speakers etc.

 

[ForcedLifeResistant]

To me, it seems as though the left has been so full of shit lately that peope are starting to forget how full of shit the right so often is. I don't think I'll be voting, this election. I'm more disgusted by politics than I've ever been.

 

[catalepsy]

I wouldn't discount beating up someone for being a bitch, but they'd have to really be a bitch to justify it. I mean, a good old fashioned ass-kicking takes a lot of effort. The bitchiness in question would have to be commensurate with the effort of the ass-kicking or there would be an inequality between the two and the reaction would be inexcusable. Think about it like this; left-wing politics are typically anti-reactionary by nature, while right-wing politics depend almost exclusively on reaction, and the question itself is whether a reactionary action would make sense as a tactic of the left.

Okay, to make that less vague and absurd, no, I don't think reactionary actions make sense from a leftist perspective, generally speaking. They're counter-productive and only reinforce the strategies of the right, which depend implicitly on unthinking reaction to work. At the same time, I'm not averse to ass-kicking. I kick asses from time to time and have my ass kicked as well. Shit happens. That's just how I roll. But I don't fight over politics. That's just dumb. I'd have to fight everybody all the time and that would be exhausting.

 

[Wayfaerer]

It does seem like there is a lot of double standards or hypocrisy within both sides. People don't seem to think that the rules apply to their side of the political spectrum.

Don't take this the wrong way but I genuinely want to know, what are some examples of right-wing hypocrisy that are blatant and out in the open? I don't mean things that are just "bad" but specifically, unambiguously hypocritical. I ask because while I don't hold the spiritual beliefs of the right I do acknowledge that they're at least consistent for the most part and don't rely on moral relativism as a "just do whatever the fuck you want, it'll stick because I said so" card.

 

[catalepsy]

Don't take this the wrong way but I genuinely want to know, what are some examples of right-wing hypocrisy that are blatant and out in the open? I don't mean things that are just "bad" but specifically, unambiguously hypocritical. I ask because while I don't hold the spiritual beliefs of the right I do acknowledge that they're at least consistent for the most part and don't rely on moral relativism as a "just do whatever the fuck you want it'll stick because I said so" card.

Isn't basically all faith-based politics morally relative these days? I mean, from a strictly theological perspective, Christ himself would probably be crucified a second time by the religious conservative crowd of today. Dude chased money-changers (people selling religious implements in a place of worship) out of a temple with a chain. That alone would be strike one and done with the religious/conservatives in the US. Faith-based initiatives aren't much different, and that's basic policy on the right.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Isn't basically all faith-based politics morally relative these days? I mean, from a strictly theological perspective, Christ himself would probably be crucified a second time by the religious conservative crowd of today.

For an example I'll use theft. The religious right believes that theft is theft no matter what, even if you steal from someone you dislike. The left doesn't hold that philosophy and can justify any behavior so long as you attach some Marxist interpretation to it.

and if we're talking in objective terms then moral nihilism is the truth. Each side is going to behave however they want and they get away with it because morality does not objectively exist.

 

[Mr2005]

The world is moving on without me.

It's moved on to something shit. Left me behind in a world that no longer exists. Everything's political now. Everyone's in their bubble. Everyone's right. Get me out of here

 

[NeverGoodEnuff]

Damn. Mayberry doesn't appear on my map app.

Personally, I think it is never right to hurt another live entity intentionally. That seems to be how people are nowdays, hurtful and entitled. I think about my small grandchildren and what their lives will be like. *shiver*

I know, I know. I don't fit here anymore (not here SS, but here on this earth).

 

[catalepsy]

For an example I'll use theft. The religious right believes that theft is theft no matter what, even if you steal from someone you dislike. The left doesn't hold that philosophy and can justify any behavior so long as you attach some Marxist interpretation to it.

and if we're talking in objective terms then moral nihilism is the truth. Each side is going to behave however they want and they get away with it because morality does not objectively exist.

Why would the left not think theft is theft? I've never heard that. If we're discussing Marxist theory, then I'm assuming you're talking about confiscatory tax policy. Fair, but the right pursues the same tactics in a much less direct way - operating in reverse. They pursue confiscatory tax policy by reducing the share that corporate entities and shareholders have to contribute, cutting public services, and encouraging private lenders to fill the vacuum that once contained welfare programs. The issue is a lot more complex, especially if you're looking at it through a Marxist, or even a generally economic lens.

 

[Mr2005]

It shows how stupid it all is the left and the right as if they're singular entities when on here it doesn't matter until it's brought up. Here it's us and the normies. It's to feel a sense of belonging and nothing more when actually it creates more division

 

[Wayfaerer]

Why would the left not think theft is theft? I've never heard that. If we're discussing Marxist theory, then I'm assuming you're talking about confiscatory tax policy. Fair, but the right pursues the same tactics in a much less direct way - operating in reverse. They pursue confiscatory tax policy by reducing the share that corporate entities and shareholders have to contribute, cutting public services, and encouraging private lenders to fill the vacuum that once contained welfare programs. The issue is a lot more complex, especially if you're looking at it through a Marxist, or even a generally economic lens.

I wasn't explicitly referring to tax policy but more like re-defining terms to suit their interests. Racism is not racial discrimination but racial discrimination done by the majority ethnic group against minorities and the same thing could be said about sexism. Speaking of theft, just look at San Fransisco they're a stunning example (theft of non-essentials is A-okay so long as you're "disadvantaged"). The left is also much more willing to punch below the belt and to resort to dirty measures because "the ends justify the means" (e.g. everything following the George Floyd "protests," non-stop slander campaign against Trump since day 1, voter fraud, etc, etc).

The religious right has structure. It is based on falsehood, but it is structure nonetheless.

 

[Iloveyouall]

Is it normal for left winged people to justify violence and solve violence by violence or are just those guys extremists? Can I beat someone up because they are a bitch to me?

Violence can always be justified, you just get convinced or not by the arguments and the circumstances. It's not a question of left or right, from what I just read about it those guys are just extremists and stupid because now it damages their cause more. You can't attack people who are acting legaly anyway. You can't even attack people who act illegaly some times.

 

[Lmd]

Big changes never came peacefully

 

[catalepsy]

I wasn't explicitly referring to tax policy but more like re-defining terms to suit their interests. Racism is not racial discrimination but racial discrimination done by the majority ethnic group against minorities and the same thing could be said about sexism. Speaking of theft, just look at San Fransisco they're a stunning example (theft of non-essentials is A-okay so long as you're "disadvantaged"). The left is also much more willing to punch below the belt and to resort to dirty measures because "the ends justify the means" (e.g. everything following the George Floyd "protests," non-stop slander campaign against Trump since day 1, voter fraud, etc, etc).

The religious right has structure. It is based on falsehood, but it is structure nonetheless.

Its structure is there, I'll grant you that, but right/religious politics are inherently contradictory from a thological perspective. The core of the biblical message overall is an anti-anthropocentric one, focusing away from all human authority and placing all sovreignty with the deity. That's clear from as early as the Pentateuch. And that single thread is one of the only primary consistencies in the biblical message as a whole work. That's all I'm saying. You want an example of hypocricy, the existence of religious and right in the same synthesis is in itself hypocritical.

 

[Fragile]

I was very left leaning in the past, but seeing how the movement degenerated into a deranged and hypocritical doctrine turned me away. But my perspective on this is still the same.

No, feels don't justify physical violence. Words have power, but acting violently because of them is childish and shows just how much control other people have over you.

Big changes never came peacefully

A quick google search will correct you almost instantly. Big changes lead by a peaceful movement have happened many times in history.

That mentality is the reason why tyrannical movements have been so successful in the past. Nothing that starts with violence ends up well, many of the violent revolutions ended up in absolutely horrible authoritarian and evil governments that generated real victims, those innocents had to pay for the violence of the revolution. And this goes both for the left and the right.

 

[AllReturnsToNothing]

If a group of people decide to form an entire identity around hatred and desire to eradicate the "undesireables" of society then that is grounds for violence since hate groups perpetuate violence towards others. This isn't rocket science. If anyone remembers their history you might remember the Nazi invasion of Poland right? The invasion that is partially responsible for the dominant reactionary views in Poland today? That whole situation happened because the other powers of Europe sat by and did absolutely nothing to curb the power of the Nazi's even as they threatened the existence of their neighbors. The other European powers believed that they were bluffing. That is of course a classic fascist tactic to lure the liberal into a false sense of security, since "they would never stoop that low into barbarism". Fascists love pacifists because they know that a pacifist will never rise to challenge them and sooner rather than later the pacifists will be rounded up and slaughtered just the same. A few more invasions and a world war later, more that 40,000 people have been killed in death camps. And that number would have climbed higher if the other European powers didn't eventually retaliate with violence in the face of fascism. Violence against fascism is justified considering fascism is an ideology that breeds violence with the end goal ultimately being granted the freedom to perpetuate as much violence as possible with as few restrictions as possible, which includes the entire erosion of human rights. It all starts with just talk, but if not taken seriously, the loss of human life will be catastrophic.

My heart goes out to the woman who decided to fight back in the face of fascism, but one person acting alone creates no change. The only way to fight fascism effectively go about it is through coordinated effort. That's how World War II was won. But honestly when compared with the immeasurable loss of human life due to the complacent rise of fascism, was World War II really a victory in the end? Was it something that we should examine carefully and use as a tool in order to combat tyranny? The future only holds the answer.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Its structure is there, I'll grant you that, but right/religious politics are inherently contradictory from a thological perspective. The core of the biblical message overall is an anti-anthropocentric one, focusing away from all human authority and placing all sovreignty with the deity. That's clear from as early as the Pentateuch. And that single thread is one of the only primary consistencies in the biblical message as a whole work. That's all I'm saying. You want an example of hypocricy, the existence of religious and right in the same synthesis is in itself hypocritical.

I think christians today aren't orthodox but rather a spin-off that originated in catholicism. In that sense it is consistent. I understand your point though. I use "religious right" as a synonym of conservative although many conservatives are secular. I think fiscal conservatives tend to be more honest in their intentions and dealings than others, regardless of libertarian or republican. After all, small government people don't have an incentive to power grab.

 

[Fragile]

Its structure is there, I'll grant you that, but right/religious politics are inherently contradictory from a thological perspective. The core of the biblical message overall is an anti-anthropocentric one, focusing away from all human authority and placing all sovreignty with the deity. That's clear from as early as the Pentateuch. And that single thread is one of the only primary consistencies in the biblical message as a whole work. That's all I'm saying. You want an example of hypocricy, the existence of religious and right in the same synthesis is in itself hypocritical.

How is the bible's message anti anthropocentric?

It's literally a book about an omnipotent being who created a creature in its image, putting it above all the other beings in a world essentially created for them. Then it follows the lives of many humans and glorifies their sense of morality.

There are many other religions that are somewhat anti-anthropocentric, but abrahamic religions are definitely not one of them. They glorify human values and our morality to the point that they created a divine being that resembles humans in every way except that he's immortal and omnipresent.

 

[grungeCat]

Słyszałem o tym. Pomimo, że uważam się bardziej za prawaka to jeżdżenie ciężarówkami, które jawnie obrażają innych ludzi jest po prostu nie do przyjęcia. Pomyśl, że osoby LGBT spotykają się z prześladowaniem na co dzień. Znęca się nad nimi w szkole, na ulicach, tylko za to że po prostu są inni. Powtarza im się, że państwo stara się pomóc, że penalizuje wszelką przemoc i niesprawiedliwość. I tak powinno być. Tylko, że nagle okazuje się to być g***o prawdą, bo na każdym kroku osoby LGBT są wystawione na nieprzyjemności ze strony państwa. Nie zapewnia im się należytej ochrony policji podczas marszów, zezwala się na tworzenie "stref wolnych od LGBT", państwowa telewizja cały czas nadaje homofobiczne treści. Wisieńką na tym torcie jest zezwolenie na jazdę ciężarówkom, które jawnie obrażają wszystkie osoby LGBT. Pomimo, że ten problem istnieje od dawna, to nikt nie ruszył du*ska żeby coś z tym zrobić. Czy nie wkurzyłbyś się na to wszystko?

 

[catalepsy]

How is the bible's message anti anthropocentric?

It's literally a book about an omnipotent being who created a creature in its image, putting it above all the other beings in a world essentially created for them. Then it follows the lives of many humans and glorifies their sense of morality.

There are many other religions that are somewhat anti-anthropocentric, but abrahamic religions are definitely not one of them. They glorify human values and our morality to the point that they created a divine being that resembles humans in every way except that he's immortal and omnipresent.

This is the basic thrust, not the eye of the needle, but the point at which it's made most explicit:

1 Samuel 8:
7 The Lord said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 8 Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. 9 Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them."

That passage is like a summary of the thematic content of the entire Bible. It's right there in the first chapters of Genesis all the way through to Revelation. It's one of the only consistent messages in that tome. Human government is a punishment given to man for their rejection of the Kingdom of God. Mingling the laws in the OT with contemporary government is actually one of the most ironic things anyone could suggest. Trying to suggest that it's supported by New Testament scriptures is doubly ironic. Government should rightly be secular if one is being consistent theologically.

 

[Sensei]

What do you mean with "leftist"? There are many kinds of leftists, e.g. social democrats, communists, and anarchists, and they often have vastly different opinions about different things. They can't necessarily be lumped together. Unless you're in the USA, that is. They seem to think liberals are leftist over there! That said, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of all leftist factions have one thing in common, and that is that they reject violence as a means to achieve their goals. The only group I can think of which uses violence is AFA, but they, at a guess, constitute 0.1% of all leftists, if even that.

 

[Sprite_Geist]

To an extent the political spectrum is relative to whatever country you are in. An individual or group that is considered "leftist" in the USA may be viewed as centrist or even right-winged in a country where the political parties are overall more left-leaning, and vice versa.

 

[_Kaira_]

To an extent the political spectrum is relative to whatever country you are in. An individual or group that is considered "leftist" in the USA may be viewed as centrist or even right-winged in a country where the political parties are overall more left-leaning, and vice versa.

Really? I always thought centrist meant you take bits and pieces of both sides, but never really lean on either. Of course, I'm not all too knowledgeable about politics. Just what I assumed.

 

[Sensei]

To an extent the political spectrum is relative to whatever country you are in. An individual or group that is considered "leftist" in the USA may be viewed as centrist or even right-winged in a country where the political parties are overall more left-leaning, and vice versa.

Logic and basic political theory transcend borders. For instance, it's generally agreed that a political movement which is pro-capitalist is right-wing. Hence, liberals are right-wing no matter what conservatives may say. (Just to avoid an unnecessary discussion: the first welfare state as we know it was created by the ultra-conservative Bismarck to prevent a socialist revolution. This is just an example, but I think it shows that welfare systems aren't exclusively left-wing and you can even build a case that they undermine left-wing movements.)