Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.
(I wasn’t sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)
Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.
(I wasn’t sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)
Please… this is a serious display of availability bias.
Let’s face it: the demographic here is just a hyper concentrated version of Reddit, which itself is mostly middle-upper class tweenagers from affluent countries. They get online and get convinced that everyone is just like them.
The average person that hangs out on Reddit-like forums absolutely does not represent the population at large, and any “right-winger who can be present in a discussion without spewing a whole lot of vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit” has learned that there is no way one can have a reasonable exchange of ideas in any forum like this.
Your points about social bubbles and echo chambers are true, but experiencing the displeasure of having to routinely interact with rightwingers in person verifies that they have fully-fledged conviction in their “vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit”. They can’t have a reasonable exchange of ideas because they bring nothing reasonable or empathetic to the table.
There are many right wingers here, not conservatives. Liberals are right wing, and lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works are mainly liberal instances.
What rimu was mainly talking about are conservatives, or even far right users. So he wasn’t criticizing the whole right wing, he just used the term right wing to refer to those.
I know it’s comfortable to sit and call anything slightly right of ultra socialism as ‘right wing’ but a spectrum exists.
To conflate republican evangelical dominionist Christians with liberals is peak hubris.
There is a saying: ‘when you’re a hammer, every problem is a nail’. When you reduce everything to class warfare you’re not engaging in an effective discourse to reduce harm in the world. You’re just pontificating on the merits of socialism, which yea, we all agree are neat. But so what? You think folding everyone else into a basket gives you credence or helps the discourse in any way?
I wasn’t conflating. Conservatives are not liberals. But they are both right wing. (at least, classical liberals are)
And there is more than just class warfare, i agree.
But so what? why does it matter that they are right wing? not everyone has to be a communist.
The term left and right are very ambiguous to define in the first place. Some people argue that leftism is anti-capitalism. Some argue that leftism is just belief in equality. They are all right. Same thing with the right wing.
I think my issue is with the usage of the phrase “right wing” because we need something scathing to label liberals. It doesn’t really contribute anything to the discourse except create layers of exclusion.
Liberalism, broadly, is not interested in supporting or enabling hierarchies. The only thing they share in common with right wing conservatism is the ownership of private property -but that’s it. So lumping them all in the same bucket isn’t doing much for anyone except creating more exclusion at the risk of pushing forward socialist policies. The reality is liberals are probably more likely to favor equality, even if it’s just ideological. Shouldn’t we strive to bring more people on board and build bridges rather than continue this bizarre war of artrition?
Wikipedia: Right Wing Politics
My intent was not to cause division, I originally meant to clear things up for the user I was originally replying to, but things quickly descended into arguing about semantics. I agree that we should all work together to eliminate the rising threat of far right, fascist parties worldwide. That is what we should be focusing on.
I’m tired over me bikeshedding, So i’m just going to forfeit out of this argument.
Have a great weekend
We don’t have to have an argument over it. It’s ok to have a conversation. I’m familiar with the ‘liberals are right wing’ talking point.
I’m just trying to understand what exactly it is that defines ‘right wing’ and how we define ‘liberalism’ . You’re right, it IS a semantic discussion, but clearly the implication is that liberalism is on par with being right wing. So, nonetheless, a semantic relabeling which is not devoid of consequences.
So I’m wondering, at what point do those two overlap (liberalism and right wing politics)? Is it the right to private property? Beyond that, what exactly makes liberalism ‘right wing’?
I should have specified, i was talking about classical liberalism. Social liberals are center-left to left wing.
The way i see it, the barebones definition of right wing and left wing is that leftism supports minimization, or abolishment of hierarchy, and equality, both class and social. You don’t have to be 100% of all these points to be left wing, just a degree of it.
The right wing believes that hierarchies are natural, and inevitable, or even desirable. They believe inequality is natural, due to social differences. Most of them believe that authority is good (not exclusive to right wing politics, there are authoritarian leftist ideologies) with libertarians and ancaps being an exception.
Classical liberals believe in free market, and generally have negative views on social services, taxes, and such.
Social liberals believe in a mixed economy, and favour social services, and believe in social justice (also class equality, but not a huge talking point for them). I think this makes them center, and at most, center-left (See social democracy or the nordic model). What makes them different than socialists and communists is that they are not quite radical in comparison to them, socialists desire to minimize wealth inequality (and inequality in general. politically, socially, etc) as much as possible.
Another point that you brought up is private property. I think this is also a defining factor on why I think liberals tend to be more right leaning.
You can still believe in markets, and be far left. Socialism, is when the workers own the means of production. It’s a pretty barebones definition, which makes it possible to have free markets, AND socialism. See Mutualism, Market Socialism, and Titoism
I agree with all of this. However, and I could be wrong, my understanding of classic liberalism is that it was never directly opposed to regulation or social services. My initial understanding is that it’s by necessity tied to free markets and private property.
But if it is then I’m learning something new.
Case closed.
They are? i’m not sure where you live, but most of the world considers them to be right wing.
Yep. I’m fiscally conservative, mildly sympathetic to people who fear and resist change, and fond of the pragmatic pursuit of libertarian ideals, where that’s possible.
I also feel that how others do sex is none of my damn business, taxes supporting social services are necessary, and equitably applied rule of law is critical for any real economic prosperity.
On the scale of history, I suspect that makes me centrist or even a moderate conservative.
In my country, and today, somehow, astonishingly, this combination makes me what most would call very left leaning.
I feel that the right has gone insane and continues to alienate people who might otherwise have been allies.
Let me guess, the US? The only people i’ve ever heard call liberals something as BS as far-left communists are conservative americans. The overton window in america is so ridiculous it’s hilarious.
No. Liberalism is against most things that the right wing of the political spectrum explicitly stands for. Liberalism exists as a counter argument to conservatism. As I mentioned earlier US political language has twisted and distorted what these words really mean.
I’m assuming you’re talking in a US perspective.
Leftism describes a spectrum of political ideologies that seeks to minimize hierarchies and desires to achieve equality and egalitarianism. Liberalism is a pro-capitalist ideology, and capitalism is hierarchial and is unequal. Thus, liberalism is right wing. Progressivism isn’t related to right or left wing. You can be a communist but socially conservative. You can be fiscally conservative and be progressive. In the US, being left wing or right wing is mainly measured on how progressive, or if you support social programs (a little leftist, but still can be right wing, just center-right). Liberalism is right wing. Conservatism is far right.
No. I’m not talking from a US perspective. I’m talking from a political perspective. Liberalism is a moral and political philosophy - that is available in more than one flavour. Many things liberalism stands for are incompatible with right wing governments. Conservatism is far right? No, fascism is far right and there is an enormous difference between being conservative and being a fascist. Right and left are both part of a spectrum and run the whole gamut from dipping your toe in the water to being fully submerged. It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
The whole left and right label is very ambiguous and hard for me to define. I agree liberalism is an umbrella term for a variety of political ideologies. I was mainly talking about classic liberalism, while it seems that you are talking about social liberalism. Social liberalism, at most, is center left. So is social democracy. I was mainly thinking about neoliberalism, and such.
Again, no. I was talking about John Locke and David Lloyd George type characters - to suggest that the last Liberal party prime minister of the UK was to the right of the political spectrum was an interesting take I’d never heard before.