What is your single most right-wing view? : asklemmygrad

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

Definitely not my most rightwing view, but my most rightwing conscious position is that comrades should join and build up whatever organisations they can, even if they are right-deviationists or contain reactionary elements, and fight over those inside the organisations. This includes parties with settler, LGBT-phobic, misogynous among other deviations.

I also have another view that may be seen as rightwing here (and is definitely controversial) that settler-colonialism is not the principal contradiction in current day USA, North America, or most of the rest of the Americas. It's first between the international bourgeoisie (with home base in the US) and the international proletariat, then between peripheral nations and the imperial core finance, military and cultural sectors, and only after that it's between oppressed minorities (be they native or "imported") and the national state repression force. Some day I'll take the time for this struggle session.

[–] big_spoon@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

maybe that being a communist doesn't require to be a militant atheist. Atheism is a method for some people to avoid reactionary traps that usually come with religion

[–] SlayGuevara@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

Out party consists of many religions and (so far) no problem has occurred. Not between the Muslims and the Christians, or even Muslims and LGBTQ+ community like so many libs like to go on about. Nothing. It can absolutely work when working towards socialism.

[–] fatur0000new@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

Rothbard has awesome smile

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

Honestly, many of these posts aren't even "right-wing" views, they're just shared positions like "guns are empowering to civilians", "have some respect for cultures you're entering and learn to communicate", "people raising a child should be supported", "child abusers should be removed from society".

The framing of some of these as "right-wing" or "anti-left" due to progressivist liberals is harmful and something we have to punch through. In my union, I had to put on a nice face and discuss with a member who only knew how to frame their legitimate proletarian objections to offshoring and porky's cost-cutting through terms like "woke nonsense", "diversity" and the like. And it sucks for them too, because their unfortunate, inaccurate choice of words lumps them in with absolute scum, and so they have to justify every other sentence with a good ol' "I'm not a racist" to try and clarify their objection (which, in this case, based on their other views and talking to them further, I really think was true and not just the classic shield tactic that Nazi scum abuse to feign humanity). When progressive liberals have garbage analysis and advocate idealist misguided solutions, that alienates reasonable people who might end up believing themselves to be "anti-left", given the Overton window puts proglibs in the "left" here.

I can only imagine if they talked to someone else who took their language at face value and then (understandably) dismissed them as an anti-worker pro-bigotry bastard etc. etc., instead of realizing it's just (for lack of a more neutral word) ignorance. Their legitimate proletarian concerns would be answered with dismissal or an attack. That's why we need to say loudly and clearly that we have shared proletarian values, not just "leftist" values.

(daily reminder that "left-right" is a nonsense subjective category anyway)

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 12 hours ago

(daily reminder that “left-right” is a nonsense subjective category anyway)

I'm not convinced it's nonsense as a whole, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding it. Especially in situations like US electoral "republican-democrat" dichotomy, where people sometimes label republican as right and democrat as left, which is indeed nonsense. I think it's kinda like "fascism" where there is historical meaning and then there is how it gets bandied about, and there's a lot of muddied use of it.

[–] An_ominous_mist@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Well said. This really gets to the heart of it. I forget where I heard this quote but "the culture war is a proxy class war" is something I feel has a lot of truth to it.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Great phrase, I'll have to remember that one! And that's absolutely at play here from the "progressive" liberalist side too - I suspect a significant chunk of the frustration with "DEI" and "woke" is due to the capitalist abuse the underlying progressive movements, comparable to rainbow capitalism. Offshoring (I originally miswrote that as "outsourcing" before you replied) to cheap underqualified labor is justified as "diversity", but local workers suffer because the capitalist is hiring people who aren't doing the job as well. The capitalist is justifying their anti-worker exploitation as being social justice! So for people who are brought up in a casually racist environment [read: most citizens here] and just not used to thinking about how they say things, they can thoughtlessly say something that's easily misinterpreted as racist bigotry. Consider: "They keep giving our jobs to Indians who can't do it as well" - it absolutely comes off as racist (or nationalist) to me, but could also just be someone who seriously doesn't care about whether they're from India or a different race, they're objecting to the outsourcing which just happens to currently be to India. Thoughlessness, which leads them to have to justify with defenses: "I'm not a racist, the Indian coworkers over here are wonderful, I have an Asian wife", you get the idea. Again, I know those lines are also abused by dissonant racists, but we would be foolish to just assume.

The person I was talking about before had earlier complained that they were also getting in trouble at work for being direct and blunt, rather than diplomatic and polite, like if someone was talking loudly on their phone while others are trying to work, or they didn't put enough greetings and sugar in their email and someone got offended. And they mentioned that it wasn't easy for them to adjust, because they'd been conditioned in certain engineering and military [fuck the troops] jobs where you don't have time to formulate and beat about the bush or worry about politics, direct and timely communication matters, and I suspect that leads them toward this thoughtless unfortunate phrasing, forcing them to backtrack with those defenses; "they can't say anything anymore". And, yes, again, that's the same line we also see used by pieces of crap who want to say racist garbage. It's all so tiresome!

[–] An_ominous_mist@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 10 hours ago

yeah definitely. I think a those of us who have beliefs we've taken the time to think through choose our words carefully, we assume others do the same. in reality most working people haven't, they just regurgitate things they've heard on TV, Facebook and other corporate platforms. the silver lining is that our ideas are not as unpopular as they might appear. you really don't know until you find a common language with someone what you really disagree on.

[–] Dengalicious@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

We should attempt to get rid of alcohol and drugs in society. That’s not say immediate criminalization but we should go after producers of these ills and work to eliminate them through gradual, supportive-of-addicts means entirely.

[–] darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I partially agree, I think drugs should be outlawed and/or limited. I'm not against people in certain mental health situations being given ayahuasca or similar drugs with potential therapeutic effects but I don't think people should be able to buy heroin at the corner store for regular recreational use and that there should be allowed this drug culture (420, etc) around it.

I think ceremonially people should be allowed reasonable limited amounts of certain substances like alcohol (and weed) in state regulated amounts (like tied to a state ID card) like a bottle of wine for new years and a few other holidays and a bottle of whiskey a year but not like 2 bottles of whiskey and a case of beer a week type consumption. Not you know spending every other day high out of your mind on weed for hours at a time. I think what weed that is available recreationally should be weakened back to mid 20th century levels of THC and no one under 24 should be allowed access to it given the potential dangers to developing brains. As smoke is a carcinogen by itself consumption in that form should be discouraged for those who wish to use it, those who require it be done that way for traditional ceremonial/cultural reasons can still do so but most should be encouraged to bake it into foods or imbibe in some other manner that reduces the harm.

I understand why under capitalism people drink heavily or do lots of drugs, how miserable life can be, how hard labor conditions are so I'm not in favor of harsh restrictions on alcohol/weed under capitalism (though I'm also not in favor of legalization of more hard drugs which would be used to harm the proletariat, drug people into a sense of uncaring acceptance, exploit people to addict them to a product for profit, etc).

I think it's a definite harm and people don't understand that say the type of weed that Stalin smoked was like a hundred times weaker than the stuff you can buy in a shop today. Back in Stalin's day weed was a mild relaxant really compared to what it is today.

[–] Dengalicious@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 11 hours ago

Even if marijuana could be more mild, it still impairs driving. There is absolutely no reason for recreational marijuana to be legal and I think that attempts to take down these dealers is important since they kill people through impaired driving. I think it needs to be dealt with through long term social reform, elimination of poverty, arrests and destructing of the dealers, and education.

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I don't want no gubbermint taking my guns.

[–] sushimvt@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 15 hours ago

Not even right wing, Marx said this shit

[–] sushimvt@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 21 hours ago

Comrades need to look presentable and dress normally when they are representing Marxism in a public form. Part of being a communist is appealing to everyday people. There is a reason why every successful communist movement, from the Panthers to the Bolsheviks, presented themselves well and professionally.

This isn't even really right-wing.

[–] 201dberg@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I'm just gonna say it, many of these really don't feel like explicitly right wing ideals and more just "things that most people actually see are reasonable but like, wouldn't be ok in a futuristic Star Trek level utopia," but are things that many people will agree upon makes sense given the current material and social conditions of society.

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 16 hours ago

And that's a good thing thankfully, it would be pretty alarming if there were.

[–] fire86743@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It is either:

Pornography should be illegal

or the Axis of Resistance should be supported.

[–] Kirbywithwhip1987@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 21 hours ago

Based

[–] mattyroses@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 day ago

Gambling should be illegal

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 23 hours ago

I believe in the death penalty as a security measure, but not as punishment, at least in theory.

In practice, the cost to society to ensure absolute certainty in guilt almost always far outweighs the security gain, so it doesn't make sense. Maybe once a century.

[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe there should be limits to kids being on social media and on the internet

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 11 hours ago

I've thought about this before, and i think while limits are a good idea, most peoples approach to this would be a disaster.

Using the internet is a skill. One that most of us alive today have naturally developed over time. Kids need to be able to do this too. Otherwise once they become adults they will be very confused, and susceptible to scams. Much like how elderly people who didn't use it as kids are now.

For that reason i think its necessary to have an internet that is just for kids. I'm not talking about like the typical youtube kids sort of thing. I mean like an entire separate net. Similar to the one everyone else uses, but with guardrails in place. Give them all a little currency of digital points they can use to buy things like cosmetics for their profiles, or even real things. Maybe stores could offer little treats, or toys to them for the points. Then let them have ways to scam each other, and ways to earn the points by doing things like watching educational content, or doing good in school.

Moderate it heavily for content. But not for how they act towards each other. It would allow them to experience being scammed and losing their hard earned points in a controlled environment without it being real money once they're an adult. Things like bullying, while they should be monitored, i would allow to an extent. It's going to happen on the real internet, and people need to get used to ignoring it. I would even argue professional adult educators should have fake profiles in this kid net where they play bad actors. They comment things like "This is stupid" under posts, they try to scam them, stuff like that. Then we foster a culture among the actual kids where they are good at spotting these scams, it could be taught in school then used in practice against the fake accounts, and dealing with bullying. Teach them when someone comments a mean thing you respond by refuting it, and complementing the person it was directed at.

I think this mainly comes down to one thing. Kids are not gonna stay kids. People these days tend to act like they will. Like sheltering them from everything is the answer. People learn through experience, and if you shelter people through their childhood they lose out on opportunities to learn things naturally like this. Then they become adults who are naive, and vulnerable.

So we simulate the real internet in a controlled environment. Foster a culture on this fake internet that is positive, and robust against bad actors. Then let it slowly bleed over into the real internet as these kids get older. I'd probably allow them on the real internet once they turn 15 or 16, and allow them to stay on the kid net until 18. So there would be a transitional period.

As for enforcing it the most i would do if a kid somehow like jailbroke their device and got on the main internet is some sort of school punishment. Extra work or something. Maybe involving computers since they have shown an interest in that by doing it. As for adults who get on the kid net unauthorized I'd treat it as a serious criminal offense. Depending on what they were doing anything from massive fines, to prison time.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Public smoking should be banned. And I'm not sure why so many people insist that they have a right to pollute everyone else's air. Especially when asthma is not an uncommom condition.

And kids are being hurt just by this drug abuse being on public display almost everywhere

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Is that a right wing view? I always saw the right wing view as "fuck you, I can give lung cancer to whomever I want."

[–] 201dberg@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

No, most of the views in this thread aren't right wing views. Not allowing smoking in public because it's hazardous to other health would be considered more of a left wing ideal because it puts the health of the working class as a whole over the desire of the individual to poison themselves.

So many of these comments are actually just extreme views that many people actually agree with. Most seeming to be left wing oriented. Threads like this are always stupid because the author is just trying to start controversy in the community and most of the commenters aren't going to post their ACTUAL right wing thoughts because they know they will get downvoted and harassed for them.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 22 hours ago

So many of these comments are actually just extreme views that many people actually agree with. Most seeming to be left wing oriented. Threads like this are always stupid because the author is just trying to start controversy in the community and most of the commenters aren’t going to post their ACTUAL right wing thoughts because they know they will get downvoted and harassed for them.

Could also be that most people in this community don't really hold right wing views, being leftists. Or if they do hold them, they aren't really aware of them. I can't imagine anyone here holding full on reactionary views and being aware of it, and we aren't going to have economic right wing ideas here, what with the whole communism thing.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 3 points 22 hours ago

To be fair, this is lemmygrad

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 3 points 1 day ago

I suppose that's a way to see it. In my experience being around hippies and ultra left people, a weirdly common view is that tobacco and weed are completely harmless and it should be allowed everywhere.

But that might have been them talking from their addicted perspective?

[–] June@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

trans ppl should form an ethnostate in great britain and expel, enslave, and/or exterminate the cis population. all the property of the cis inhabitants should be confiscated without exception and distributed among the worthy members of the Party as well as soldiers who have been accorded honours for bravery

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 23 hours ago

I thought this was the thread for right wing views???

[–] SlayGuevara@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago

This is the future Labor wants

[–] KrupskayaPraxis@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm somewhat of an anti-natalist. I don't think it's necessarily smart to have children, only if you really want to but even then not too many.

I think there are too many rules when it comes to things like alcohol and cigarettes because I think it is the responsibility of the person itself and not the government. But fuck cigarette and alcohol advertising though

Lastly I don't like it when people are too affectionate in public and think they should keep it to themselves

[–] 666@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 57 minutes ago)

Agreed besides for the last point. I don't mind holding hands and kisses on benches. I can see your point if you mean making out or further intimacy.

Every person I know with a child does not regret having them. However, from an outside perspective, every person I know with a child has had to eat some form of major shit because of the fact they had a responsibility for that child. You are easier to control with a child. That is a simple fact.

Either or not that is worth having a child in this current system is up to you and I don't think anyone should be limited from having a child.

[–] An_ominous_mist@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 10 hours ago

100% on that last point LMAO, not the rest though

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ngl I'm not sure so I'll name a few.

1.Im very pro-natalist. I think, under well and stable circumstances (so not china during the one china policy) people should be encouraged to have children and preferably 2 or more. Obviously there should be provisions for this to make sure it doesn't turn criminal or get out of hand, but I think having a large and fresh young generation is very good for preventing lapses into unproductivity and conservativism. (However, abortion and such shouldn't be criminalized, Obviously)

2.I kinda like Theodore Roosevelt, at least on a personal level. I know I know imperialist warmonger, you don't have to remind me. But as a physically deficient near sighted kid, he really inspired me to both be more active and more curious about the world. It was kinda a never meet your heros thing, but I still have a soft spot for him

3.Up to a reasonable point, you should obey authority with little question (in day to day activity). Obviously it shouldn't be unquestionable or unqualified (not even Confusious thought that authority should be completely unquestioned), but I always feel like getting person x the y they ask for without question makes things a lot smoother than constantly butting in, trying to wield authority ypu don't have. I'm also a much larger fan of consistency rather than pure benefit (i.e, if one mathematics professor has a different system for notation than the rest of the field, even if that notation is better I woukd rather just be taught the consistent notation). [Side note:this makes me hate capitalism even more. Like how are you so bad that the person who bows so easily doesn't even believe in you?]

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 20 hours ago

I have the same view as you about the first one. It feels nice not being lonely! High five!

[–] 201dberg@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

This is one of the few truly right wing comments that's truly right wing enough to furrow my brow. Have an up vote on your way to the gulag comrade.

[–] sleeplessone@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For me, it's stuff that I consciously realize is wrong but unconsciously and irrationally still believe in to some extent.

I still believe in personal responsibility bootstrapping to an unreasonable degree. For example, I see obesity and drug use as personal moral failings that are wholly on the individual, and only the individual, to rectify -- for myself anyway. I don't wield it as a cudgel against others at least. Come to think of it, I think I mostly believe in this solely so I can be hard on myself.

I also for some reason vacillate between reactionary Dawkins style anti-theism (extreme to the point where I'm convinced I'd crucify Jesus again if I ever met him) and being convinced that religiosity and spirituality are prerequisites to being a good person and that my inability to convince myself that god is real means I'm an ontologically evil subhuman.

Also also I find it hard to resist my hard-wired programming to be a knee-jerk western chauvinist. A lot of my "unlimited genocide on the first world" style posting is partly to counteract this tendency within me with an opposite extreme. I guess growing up during the war on terror and never coming across opinions like "maybe all those people our government is bombing are human beings actually" until I'm an adult will do that to a person.

[–] SlayGuevara@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I still believe in personal responsibility bootstrapping to an unreasonable degree.

Same, and that's coming from someone who has been in the gutter himself. But I think that me getting out of it on my own causes thoughts like that because I also realize that systemic oppression and liberalism and whatnot play a huge part in keeping people down, so much so that bootstrapping alone isn't helping that.

I managed to get out of my shit due to 1) a lot of discipline and character and 2) let's not kid myself, privilege. And I see so many people stuck in the shit at my job and I think to myself: man, if only you'd do this or that and things might improve. But that's arrogant on my behalf, really. Like I know it all.

Ask Lemmygrad