Many academics I see online are leftist whereas many laypeople I see online are right wing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Believe it or not, there are well educated, intelligent and well intended people in the right wing. Not the majority, by any chance, but I've met these people. I'm not saying they're right, but assuming the only possible causes for their beliefs are either ignorance or ill will/greed just feeds the polarization that's currently destroying western civilization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    What is their answer to "people are hungry and die of starvation or not being able to afford needs, while others have more money than what's possible to spend in hundreds of lifetimes of extreme luxury, what should be done about that?"? Because I can't imagine an educated, well intentioned answer to it, either you're too dumb to understand reality or you're okay with people suffering and dying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    the claim that they can't spend the money in hundreds of lifetimes pisses me off because it means you aren't creative enough to think of new, more idiotic, ways of spending money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago (1 child)

    Jef bezos net worth is 284 billion, a very bad investment yields 4% annually, that roughly translates to 11.4 billion per year, or around a billion per month, or around 31 million per day, 1.3 million per hour, or 22 thousand per minute.

    In the time it took me to write this, of Jeff Bezos is stupid (which he's not) and does very bad and safe investments he already earned over 100 thousand. The time it takes you to think on an innovative idea to spend money they already earned more than what you would spend, and the time it takes to do anything they already earned more. Think about this, of they wanted to buy a million dollar house on a different country that would take them 12h to reach by private jet, they literally lost no money buying the house and traveling there to sign the papers and fly back.

    I dare you to tell me something that would actually lose them more money than what they would earn in the time it takes to enjoy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Good video on the topic. TL;DR: They believe it's inevitable and not something you can just fix/that you can only fix very slowly. It's a fucking stupid worldview, but not an impossible one, though it's not hard to see why such worldviews tend to come from positions of privilege.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    Common subsets of this category (cynics) I’ve seen or met include those who are (A) opportunists working the corporate funding angle who are allowed or even encouraged to do so by their departments/institutions, and (B) obligate centrists who are so reticent to be identified as leaning in any particular direction politically that they effectively accept or even endorse any and every systemic injustice.

    Subgroup A are quite prevalent in journals yet tend to have markedly low-quality contributions comparatively, leading me think they are over-represented in peer review especially, easily a symptom of corruption inherent to private journals.

    Subgroup B are IMO the academic version of MLK’s “white moderate” who are simply self-interested careerists. I would say these are by far the most common by number. They aren’t working for the Right directly like subgroup A, but they won’t lift a finger to help if it might jeopardize their position. That is to say, cowards.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    It varies.

    If it's someone who is, themselves, very well-off, it goes one of two ways. Either a deontological "property is inviolable and so it doesn't matter", or "this money is fair compensation for just how awesome I am". The latter of which implies they've already done enough for their lessers, so shut up.

    "Only Americans are human, so yes, I guess we should help the American poor" is basically the MAGA answer. That also used to be the German answer. Some grifters also use the same logic, but with an even smaller group of people they care about, like just their own family.

    Somebody else mentioned "it's the way it's always been/inevitable", but if you're educated at all, you'll know better, because nothing is like it was in 1700. So, that's not an answer to your question.

    (You'll notice a common strain, that people tend to pick a worldview that's convenient for them, personally. That actually goes for the left wing, as well)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    I don't know what all of their answers are, but as a latin american I can offer you my perspective of hunger and starvation not being exclusive to the right wing and extreme luxury being something many left wing politicians will happily indulge in once elected, while their populace live in misery.

    Many of them do believe in different forms of redistribution too. Right wing political stances do not equate to "give every last penny to the rich and private sector". Political perspectives have nuance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    I'm also a latin american, I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist on the left wing, or that they're not assholes who will go crazy with power. Also I'm not saying voting right wing is always the wrong thing to do, for me authoritarian/democratic is much more important than left/right, so if my choices are authoritarian left vs democratic right, I'll vote right.

    But fundamentally when asked about inequality the right wing answer is always along the lines of "it is what it is" or "it will be solved very slowly over the next hundreds of years by not doing anything", both of which are either ignorant or evil, and of you're talking about an educated person one of those should be off the table.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Not who you're replying to, but sounds like Latin Americans are more familiar than the US by far with leftist populist dictators, Fidel Castro types... The cigar smoking kinda guys who inspired the game Tropico.

    In the US, we teach that communism is a mortal enemy that only leads to starvation and we elect greedy oligarchs that promise life will get better eventually while they fill their pockets. Socialism is seen as the extreme anti-State solution where no one starves and everyone is educated. And any evidence to the contrary is considered conservative propaganda.

    There's little room for nuance in the US. We went so far right that it feels like you have to move all the way left to fix things. And the more they call socialism the enemy, the better it sounds to people. The youth grow up thinking, either they support Trump or they're a socialist... He's probably doing more for socialism than American socialists ever did.

    I swear just having free healthcare in the 90s could have prevented all this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

    I kinda went on a rant here, lol, but feel free to not read. I have very similar opinions, but wanted to make a few points.

    The Fidel types are the more colorful examples, but we have many more. There's also the not-quite-dictators-but-dangerously-close- types, who make use of authoritarianism, media control, persecution of political adversaries, and shady democratic tactics such as Hugo Chavez & Maduro, Juan Domingo Peron, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Christina Kirchner, Lula da Silva (don't have enough info on this guy to put him in the same bag w the rest)... I'm sure some other latinamerican will see this and tell me the alternatives were far worse, and they'll likely be right, but I'd bet money NO latin american will dare tell me any of these were fair ethical leaders with the best interest of their country in mind.

    And I fully agree with your point. You guys went so far down right, (and you might hate me a bit for making this point) but your left parties are also the right wing. They might not cater to the same lobbyists, but it seems more and more to me than there is no true will to offer reasonable state services or social security nets for the vast majority of the population by either party of yours. The dems have been as much in bed with your highly toxic financial and pharma sectors as the republicans have for decades now. Your left wing politicians attempt to get elected by sending feel good messages to a comfortable middle class that wants to care but to not sacrifice anything of their own or even worse: to consort/share spaces with actual poor people.

    I'm talking the people who have half of the male members of their family in prison. I'm talking people who's entire family is unemployed and unemployable. Generational misery. The people under the bridge. Sex workers, foster care kids, people in trailer parks with no running water and the roughest parts of the ghettos.

    The actual poor people, ignorant and naive as they may be in many regards, saw right through charade of policies and philosophies that sound oh-so-humane but don't actually substantially help anyone in their precarious conditions, and said "fuck em", and in their anger, despair, naivete and ignorance went straight into the clutches of "the exact opposite of what I hate" and now we have Trump. I say we, because I consider my country a client/vassal state of the US.

    And yeah, free healthcare sounds so foreign and far away nowadays, doesn't it? Yet poorer countries pull it off relatively well. Horrible that we've gotten to this point of brainwashing by big industries/interest groups.

    I'm not sharing these thoughts to tell you your left wing is no good and nothing good can come from it. To the contrary. You guys (and we) need a strong, powerful and healthy left wing and I really really hope you can get there. I am, however, warning you against the perils of voting for "OMG THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THIS" because in latina america we've seen that movie plenty of times and it ends in "so I guess now we have a dictator".

    Sorry for the rant. Just felt like sharing my thoughts in this regard.

    I truly wish you, your country and the world the very best, and I also think a healthy socialist system is the right path. Hopefully we get somewhere nice without any more atrocities happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 day ago

    My left leaning classmate also says that American left is also right. Unfortunately, I never got a popular enough left in my country. All parties are just right and far right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I agree with most of what you said, but there's one thing we STRONGLY disagree with, and that is Lula. The others you mentioned I either don't know enough to have a strong opinion or (most of them) wholeheartedly agree that are authoritarians with only their own interests in mind. But putting Lula in the same bag as those guys shows that either you don't know enough about him, or that you fell for the misinformation campaigns done by the Brazilian extreme right when trying to get elected.

    And I'm case we're not clear, I'm a latin american who lived during most of Lula's governments in Brazil and I think he is a fair and ethical leader with the best interest of its people in mind. And if I were allowed to vote in Brazil I would have voted for him, without a doubt.

    So, instead of assuming your information on him and trying to explain all of the policies he created through all of his governments, I'll ask you what makes you think he's like that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    It's very safe to assume you're better informed about him than I am. There was definitely a smudging campaign that we caught a lot of here, and I don't remember the charges he did time for other than them vaguely being about 'corruption'. I think it's pretty safe to assume he was taking more than a little something on the side, as it would be with the vast majority of our presidents, but I won't hold that against him. I vaguely recall something about money laundering and a luxurious apartment. But anyway, that's not my issue with him. He had close ties with Christina Kirchner, which is well known to have had people killed for investigating her, and i remember something about him and her wanting to make some kind of latin american alliance thing which I consider a terrifying idea. There were also stuff about political persecution of the bolsonaro nutjob proteters but I'll take that with a big pinch of salt.

    Anyway, I'll take your word over mine and edit my post.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Nah I read it all and fully agree. 🫡 Wishing you the best American sibling wherever you are. I still have some hope things can turn around but it's hard to see the light right now with corruption as rampant as it is.

    It's always a reminder to appreciate what you have right now, because I do think things will get worse before they get better. I don't take the relative peace, shelter, running water and electricity for granted, and I similarly shouldn't be terrified of a day coming when all that isn't available. Just good to prep some emergency cash and stuff when you can and ride out the bullshit best you can.

    I think I'm just sad that Trump won over as many Americans as he did with hate rhetoric, but can't say we weren't warned that this sentiment was building.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    Man, I really hope people read this and take it to heart. Comfortable middle class Westerner who wants “OMG THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THIS” is the average Lemmy user.

    (That's me too, but only half way, and I don't want the complete opposite of anything)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I'm comfortable enough too, compared to how things go for the lower percentiles here, but yeah. People freak out and overreact. Most lemmy people seem to be in a perpetual state of outrage and panic, which, you know, understandable, but the first people to get screwed in any crisis are the ones that panic. I've been making an effort to try to emotionally regulate the people I come across here the best I can when possible, but man.. it's challenging.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Well intended towards themselves and their own. By definition there are none who are well intended towards humanity in general, since Conservatism in all its forms relies on in- and out-groups of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure how you can be on lemmy or reddit and not recognize out-grouping from the left. Groups fundamentally define themselves by what they aren't. And each group will strawman the other to strongarm their adherents into staying within the group.

    Communist. Pink haired liberals. Nazis. Fascists. Meaningless boring out-group names that are repeated ad nauseum. But go. Indulge. Join a team and have fun. But don't sacrifice real relationships for some politician. Be smarter than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    That missed the point entirely.

    In-groups: The law protects these people, but it does not restrict them.

    Out-groups: The law restricts these people, but it does not protect them.

    This is a core structure of conservatives. There is no similar core structure for the left because the left does not rely on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    Hmmm, I bet it's no secret who your team is!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    You, once again, miss the point entirely.

    Belief that everyone is part of a camp is tenuous to say the least and leads to a us and them rhetoric that prevents us from properly defining subjects.

    Part of this is simply conservativism is a backwards philosophy that looks to reinforce traditional hierarchy. Conservatives might not like this reality, but that is another discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Well-intended, sure. Everyone is the protagonist of their own story.

    Intelligent, maybe, although that's always going to push a person towards something a bit more nuanced. Other personality defects have to pick up the slack.

    Educated, well, that depends on what they studied. Engineers and doctors don't really learn much that prevents you from being a bad person. It's hard to imagine a (modern) anthropologist buying into whatever fascist nonsense, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    right wing political policy does not necessarily equate to fascism. jesus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    It's true.

    The version that's going around right now is more like that, though. Reagan is very dead. Free markets are out, blood and soil is in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    The current US right wing leader is destroying any possibility the sensible right wing concerns get any attention, but just because something took a turn to the dark side doesn't mean there was nothing worthwhile in it to begin with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Which specific right wing concerns are worthwhile?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Healthy right wing politics often promote the possibilities of small businesses to thrive in ethical ways, not the defense of unholy monopolies or abusive employment conditions. They are also more traditionally concerned with individual freedoms and right to privacy. What we are seeing now in US and global politics is not a balanced representation of right wing any more than pol pot is a fair representation of the left. It's a full blown authoritarian police state kleptocracy, and as us in the third world can testify, these can come from either side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 20 hours ago

    Small businesses are very often forced to compete with bigger players by exploiting their workers more and make higher margins on the same product/service. That's just how a capitalist ownership structure works out.

    I guess it's the deathrattle of the petit-bourgeois that's spinning up these romanticized stories about themselves because they don't want to accept their class is being dissolved and most of them are forced into the possessionless existence of being a worker.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    It seems like it's worth mentioning here, that personal rights and small business ("libertarianism", as it's known in America) has been on the right in recent history, but the French revolutionary left held a lot of similar ideas back in the 1700s. It stayed associated with the left wing through the 1800s, before socialist influence on the left pushed it out, as the century ended.

    Basically, there tends to be two sides of the political spectrum, but what exactly they are, varies over time and geography.

  • source
  • parent