this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
144 points (94.4% liked)

Asklemmy

45342 readers
558 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (18 children)

I'm mostly an anarchist. But.

I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I've been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understands a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is... Not good.

The problem is, I don't know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It's easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I'm also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. ...And once you start going down that path, it's really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.

I also don't know how to handle the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I'm not an Anarchist, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 32 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Y'all don't need to keep adding things to lgbtq or lgbt+. The q or + takes care of everything

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 days ago

I think this is a better argument that "queer" is the best catch-all phrase. Honestly, come to think of it, if we can phase out LGBT in favour of "queer" entirely, then that gives republicans a harder time to separate the T.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Im left leaning on many social issues but pronouns was never a necessary social construct hill we needed to die on.

I think that useless fight got us the full hard swing to the right.

Especially because you shouldn't give a fuck about how people perceive you. You should be whoever you are and not care about labels.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think that we just didn't fight the fight very smartly, and in the end it's been weaponized against us.

[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

It could have been as simple as "its okay to express yourself however you want or be whatever you want. You should feel safe to do so and we all have your back."

People transitioning to either gender expression has always been a thing. Changing a language seems unnecessary. However, I think respect is just the core message here. Respect all if they do no harm.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ziproot@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I believe that the stance against nuclear power (specifically, nuclear fission, as opposed to radioisotope power used by spacecraft) by greens undermines the fight to stop global warming, and that many of the purported issues with nuclear power have been solved or were never really issues in the first place.

For instance: the nuclear waste produced by old-gen reactors can be used by newer generations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

You can be Jewish and even support the idea of a Jewish homeland while also being fervently appalled by the actions of the state of Israel (Netanyahu, West Bank settlements, unarmed Palestinians shot/killed, houses being bulldozed, mass displacements).

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

Liberal zionists are still zionists

[–] dawnglider@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

There's countless invaluable Jewish voices in the anti-zionist movement of course, but what Jewish homeland could you support that wouldn't be an ethno-state? /g

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Freedom of speech for absolutely everyone, especially people I disagree with and that disagree with me

[–] UniversalMonk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

Yep. Lemme isn't really a fan if free speech and they usually say it leads to nazi things. But I'm all for free speech even if bad guys use it too.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m surprised you’re not getting downvoted and harassed.

[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Honestly what I'm saying shouldn't be a hot take. Freedom of speech has long been a classical liberal position.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 18 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I believe that the vast majority of people are inherently good, and that tribalism and political divisiveness are some of the biggest issues we have to face.

Political differences arise mostly from different values, fears, education (or lack thereof), etc, but most people if you get to know them believe what they do because they believe it is genuinely good. But increasingly politics is focused on vilifying others, instead of trying to understand each other.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

How do we tackle those problems you mentioned?

The reason I ask is I support your view here, but recently I’ve been downvoted a lot for having the opinion that I don’t blame people still using Twitter as I believe, like you, that most people are good people and can be reasoned out of what we believe are the wrong beliefs and that staying in those places to converse with them is better than Twitter becoming a right wing place and us chilling here in left wing ideology but at the end of that nobody learns anything they didn’t already know.

The hardest challenge in changing someone’s beliefs is that people don’t want to admit they were wrong or lied to or used or whatever and this makes it challenging if we can’t take our ego out of the equation.

Anecdotal proof that people can change is a YouTuber called JimmyTheGiant and he has mentioned several times how he went down the alt right pipeline but started to question things and now makes left leaning content.

[–] ndondo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Genuine question, why do you need to change peoples beliefs? Idk I find that 95% of people are pleasant to talk to and share your views with if you just speak with them nicely and try to understand their POV. And that applies to people who I vehemently disagree with.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t say I need to, but more I would like to.

If people are voting against their own interests because they have been lied to then don’t we owe it people to try and get them to see how the world works?

If people are hating on immigrants and poor people rather than the class system that is extracting all the wealth from areas then surely having more people onside makes it easier to change the system.

I agree that most people are good people and maybe just misinformed or have had their frustrations weaponised against them.

[–] ndondo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Have you heard of Daryl Davis? Black dude who convicted KKK members to quit just by being friends with them. I think empathy might be the key, I.e. its hard to be homophobic if your friend is gay.

That's the energy I like to approach discourse with. Its harder online but it is possible.

I have heard of him actually, well I didn’t know his name but I’ve heard about him.

Exactly my point. You can’t expect people to change on their own and it’s on us to try and make the world a better place, as per our morals.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pet1t@lemm.ee 31 points 3 days ago (14 children)

I am very very very left wing, BUT I can get really annoyed with a lot of those "on my side" advocating for the most idealist of all idealism, as if it's a contest. Feels like a competition of "who's the bestest and mostest leftist of all". You scare people away and - not justifying it - but I get why some people get upset with "the left" because of this...

[–] EsmereldaFritzmonster@lemmings.world 23 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Stop out-woking one another, it's okay to be right silently in order to bring in fence sitters.

If someone says, "my spirit animal told me late-stage capitalism is evil" welcome them to the club with open arms, focus on how you're alike and trust them to work out their faux pas over time spent among like-minded peers.

Also cultural appropriation ≠ exploitation, we can stop clutching our collective pearls over these faux pas.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] random@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I'm anarchist left, but I do think every human should have the right to defend themself and thereforce should be able to bear arms

I'm not american if anyone's gonna ask

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] superkret@feddit.org 24 points 3 days ago (5 children)

I'm far left, but I believe that any citizen should be allowed to own any gun.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

That's the far-left stance, generally.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 115 points 4 days ago (5 children)

There can be too much political correctness at times.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago (16 children)

That progressive people should prioritize economic equality ahead of social issues.

[–] straightjorkin@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

I'd argue nearly every single social issue is an economic one. Abortion? Anti-abortion laws are intended to force people to have kids they can't afford, making them desperate for work to keep their kids fed and clothed. Racial equality? I mean, do I need to say more than the fact that most minorities are statistically poorer? The only one that can be argued is purely social is Trans people, and I simply can't fathom letting people die for being who they are, or ignoring the blatant attacks on them from the right.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Ragdoll_X@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

I don't like racism against white people or sexism against men. Do I think they're less urgent or worrying than bigotry directed at other groups? Sure. There's less hate against men and whites compared to other groups, and bigotry against them doesn't have the same social or political impact due to current systemic racism and sexism being directed at others. But bigotry is still bigotry, and I don't like bigotry against anyone.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›