libs aren’t mature people with well thought out opinions.
Some certainly are. Shit, some conservatives are, too. “Everyone would agree with all of my correct, true opinions if they grew up and read what I read” is not a good take, even if maturity and education do help.
Plenty of people know how their bread is buttered and consciously support it. Writing off virtually all non-leftists as immature or uneducated is a serious mistake – other groups can make smart (for them) decisions, too.
ok enlightened centrist lol. liberalism and conservatism are both contradictory ideologies for dumb dumbs and are inherently regressive, how’s that. liberalism had its day of being a phase of progression but it’s time for it to go in the trash can of history. get back to me when you see the light of dialectical and historical materialism and realise Marxism-Leninism is the only alternative that’s fit for furthering the progression of humanity. but keep mounting a soft defense of conservatism if it gets you off or whatever
to your edit: evaluating an ideology should be done through the lens of how fit it is for accomplishing the universal liberation of all working and oppressed peoples. I don’t give a fuck if liberalism is a “smart” decision for some bougie mfs to protect their class interests. that doesn’t make it valid or good or worth any kind of justification. it’s at best a trite thing to point out
they’re trying to say that libs and conservatives are libs and conservatives because they’re crackers and get free pats from the empire for doing so, not that they’re actually morally right to be or have an equally valid perspective
I think it’s that you’re implying the actual ideological framework they claim to have is sound from their perspective, when it certainly isn’t. They basically just make shit up to justify their material motivations.
Those frameworks are sound if you don’t have the priors leftists do. That doesn’t mean they’re good, it just means they’re internally consistent.
Take homelessness. If your prior is that housing is a human right, then you think the government should make sure everyone has housing. But if your prior is that housing is something individuals have to provide for themselves, you aren’t as concerned about homelessness.
A lib with the latter prior isn’t stupid; they just have a fundamentally different belief about how society should work. It’s not that they haven’t read the books we have on homelessness, it’s that they simply disagree with the importance we place on the issue. Often they disagree because they understand that agreeing would have a material cost.
Of course, plenty of libs also have incoherent worldviews, or really are just uneducated on important topics. My point is that viewing them all that way isn’t correct, and falls into the same “no reasonable person could possibly disagree with me” trap we rip on others for buying into.
the problem is that developing priors requires thought in the first place and said priors are usually developed due to other terrible interpretations of things they’ve gone through. there is no real such thing as a prior, it all just goes back forever until the beginning of history
i think I got that I just think it’s a trite thing to point out around here and it falls flat anyway because it isn’t “smart” for fuckloads of Americans to be liberals or conservatives, the working masses of America would plainly be better off under socialism they just have propaganda brainworms about it. in most cases it’s not a “well thought out opinion” it’s just how citizens of the imperial core are successfully programmed to think
Some certainly are. Shit, some conservatives are, too. “Everyone would agree with all of my correct, true opinions if they grew up and read what I read” is not a good take, even if maturity and education do help.
Plenty of people know how their bread is buttered and consciously support it. Writing off virtually all non-leftists as immature or uneducated is a serious mistake – other groups can make smart (for them) decisions, too.
ok enlightened centrist lol. liberalism and conservatism are both contradictory ideologies for dumb dumbs and are inherently regressive, how’s that. liberalism had its day of being a phase of progression but it’s time for it to go in the trash can of history. get back to me when you see the light of dialectical and historical materialism and realise Marxism-Leninism is the only alternative that’s fit for furthering the progression of humanity. but keep mounting a soft defense of conservatism if it gets you off or whatever
to your edit: evaluating an ideology should be done through the lens of how fit it is for accomplishing the universal liberation of all working and oppressed peoples. I don’t give a fuck if liberalism is a “smart” decision for some bougie mfs to protect their class interests. that doesn’t make it valid or good or worth any kind of justification. it’s at best a trite thing to point out
Claims to be a materialist, believes that the vast majority of Americans have no material basis for their politics and are just stupid
you are a dumb lib or a pretty boring troll. I wish you all the best in reading a book sometime
they’re trying to say that libs and conservatives are libs and conservatives because they’re crackers and get free pats from the empire for doing so, not that they’re actually morally right to be or have an equally valid perspective
edit: Nvm I don’t know what they’re saying
No, you understand perfectly. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” and all.
No idea why “this person makes money off this policy, so they have a material reason to support it” is suddenly a controversial concept
I think it’s that you’re implying the actual ideological framework they claim to have is sound from their perspective, when it certainly isn’t. They basically just make shit up to justify their material motivations.
Those frameworks are sound if you don’t have the priors leftists do. That doesn’t mean they’re good, it just means they’re internally consistent.
Take homelessness. If your prior is that housing is a human right, then you think the government should make sure everyone has housing. But if your prior is that housing is something individuals have to provide for themselves, you aren’t as concerned about homelessness.
A lib with the latter prior isn’t stupid; they just have a fundamentally different belief about how society should work. It’s not that they haven’t read the books we have on homelessness, it’s that they simply disagree with the importance we place on the issue. Often they disagree because they understand that agreeing would have a material cost.
Of course, plenty of libs also have incoherent worldviews, or really are just uneducated on important topics. My point is that viewing them all that way isn’t correct, and falls into the same “no reasonable person could possibly disagree with me” trap we rip on others for buying into.
the problem is that developing priors requires thought in the first place and said priors are usually developed due to other terrible interpretations of things they’ve gone through. there is no real such thing as a prior, it all just goes back forever until the beginning of history
i think I got that I just think it’s a trite thing to point out around here and it falls flat anyway because it isn’t “smart” for fuckloads of Americans to be liberals or conservatives, the working masses of America would plainly be better off under socialism they just have propaganda brainworms about it. in most cases it’s not a “well thought out opinion” it’s just how citizens of the imperial core are successfully programmed to think