The reason why the Left wing ultimately always loses

[Kraenen]

Protecting the weak is part of our evolutionary heritage. Unfortunately, we have social systems in place that divide people into uniform units and make natural distribution of resources difficult (monogamy, binary sexuality, nuclear family, etc), so it's actually more adherent to our nature to enforce broad social policies that uplift those in need.

It's likely this was evolved in mammals, so you could say our biological nature became a bit more left. Although this still precludes that nature/reality is right-wing and evolution almost always shows us its cruelty and carelessness.

[Underverse]

Right wingers aren't necessarily conservatives. It only has to do with equality/inequality.


Social liberalism would then be a mix of left and right. And I did no such thing.

You certainly did such a thing:

That's why the left is always a struggle and more a movement based on feelings than cold, logical rationality.

Note the word 'always' and 'the left'. These are some pretty broad absolute statements.

That aside, left vs right isn't just about equality. These are two all-encompassing terms. You can't just define them to be juxtaposed around a single issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it "misguided"? to equalize the field and by that I mean reduce it significantly? There still seems to me deeply ingrained in the American psyche from the Cold War this massive fear that a reduction between the rich and poor is somehow communist and would result in your society losing to Russia or some shit.

The misguided populist arguments I was referring to generally encompass things like modern social justice movements. I agree that we should reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

[Rassium]

Do people know that Lincoln was not a Republican in the manner of the modern day Republican party?

No, they don't.

"Republican" and "Democrat" are just party names and they've basically swapped stances in modern times compared to their historical counter parts. But this thread was supposedly about "the left wing" or something.

- - - Updated - - -

Reality is ultimately right-wing. People are unequal by nature and by necessity. That's why the left is always a struggle and more a movement based on feelings than cold, logical rationality.

You have a very strange definition of right wing and left wing.

[PC2]

Is our current society left or right?

[Underverse]

It's likely this was evolved in mammals, so you could say our biological nature became a bit more left. Although this still precludes that nature/reality is right-wing and evolution almost always shows us its cruelty and carelessness.

Human nature is only cruel and careless in the presence of stress. If it were always cruel and careless, we wouldn't have evolved to think these acts to be cruel and careless.

- - - Updated - - -

Is our current society left or right?

I would say it's more right than pre-agriculture, but more left than it's foundation.

- - - Updated - - -

You have a very strange definition of right wing and left wing.

One might even say fabricated.

[Release]

You certainly did such a thing:



Note the word 'always' and 'the left'. These are some pretty broad absolute statements.

That aside, left vs right isn't just about equality. These are two all-encompassing terms. You can't just define them to be juxtaposed around a single issue.

- - - Updated - - -



The misguided populist arguments I was referring to generally encompass things like modern social justice movements. I agree that we should reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

I agree with you, I wish this forum would separate left wing politics of which I very much support with social justice movements which I think are mainly absurd.

Historically the left has been associated with social change but that doesn't mean every bat shit crazy feminist and racial warrior is somehow representative of new left wing ideology just as Trump isn't representative of all right wing politics.

[Kraenen]

That aside, left vs right isn't just about equality. These are two all-encompassing terms. You can't just define them to be juxtaposed around a single issue.

There really isn't much more to it. From its inception it was about spreading power to the people by republicanizing and liberalizing. Can you really have a belief that is right-wing and pro-equality at the same time?

[Release]

Is our current society left or right?

Depends on the issue and economics, overall I would put America middle-far right on economic policy and center - slightly right on social issues. That's just my opinion though.

[PosPosPos]

I'm sorry what? Your measure of left-wing means something based on "correctness"? Then some ideas are more correct than others, some scientific theories win out, some lose. Left-wing knowledge is essentially just relativism.

No, because the right wing is ultimately based on rejecting science.

Left wing comes to it's conclusions based on empirical data, established and peer reviewed science. The right wing resorts to religious extremism, fear and desperation to incite/suppress the general populace.

The elite are usually aware of this.

Anyway none of this really disproves what I said or proves otherwise. People are by nature unequal, it's always been a left-wing project to equalize things. Maybe in the very distant future we could control genetics, resources, and all that. Even then positions of power would never be equal.

I didn't say it did. In fact, I agreed with you - that quality of life does accurately reflect on right wing ideology. I fail to see why you are so mad and triggered that I said something which supported your case.

The left wing works towards a brighter future, but all you are essentially saying is that, because nature is x, we should regress and be x as well. Live as cavemen, with no electricity, cooked food etc, destroy all our civilization including science, medicine etc.

[Kraenen]

You have a very strange definition of right wing and left wing.

I find it strange people think liberal means left-wing. But hey mainstream politics rots the brain.

[Underverse]

I agree with you, I wish this forum would separate left wing politics of which I very much support with social justice movements which I think are mainly absurd.

Historically the left has been associated with social change but that doesn't mean every bat shit crazy feminist and racial warrior is somehow representative of new left wing ideology just as Trump isn't representative of all right wing politics.

These radical social justice movements are more authoritarian and regressive than liberal. I'm not quite sure where they fall, but it's nowhere near me.

[Kraenen]

Human nature is only cruel and careless in the presence of stress. If it were always cruel and careless, we wouldn't have evolved to think these acts to be cruel and careless.

Not just human nature. But nature and the cosmos itself.

[Underverse]

There really isn't much more to it. From its inception it was about spreading power to the people by republicanizing and liberalizing. Can you really have a belief that is right-wing and pro-equality at the same time?

There are many issues beyond equality that are associated with left and right wing ideologies. Maybe this infographic will help.

[Kraenen]

No, because the right wing is ultimately based on rejecting science.

You probably think this way because you think conservatives = right-wing. I mean as Quetzl pointed out to me, you can pick out any populists or extremists. You can pick christians who believe in equality for all, and evolutionists who believe some races have a right to power over others.

I didn't say it did. In fact, I agreed with you - that quality of life does accurately reflect on right wing ideology. I fail to see why you are so mad and triggered that I said something which supported your case.

The left wing works towards a brighter future, but all you are essentially saying is that, because nature is x, we should regress and be x as well. Live as cavemen, with no electricity, cooked food etc, destroy all our civilization including science, medicine etc.

Where do you get any of this? Seems radically delusional compared to what I actually said, which has very little if any connection.

[Release]

These radical social justice movements are more authoritarian and regressive than liberal. I'm not quite sure where they fall, but it's nowhere near me.

They are an entity the more prominent right wing members of this forum use to attack the left but frankly they are some new stream of human detritus and stupidity and really don't fall anywhere on a political spectrum.

[Saucexorzski]

God Bless the Right Wing May Real Americans Always Prosper

http://i.imgur.com/HOuweCG.png

Based on the true story of 2008 + 8 years.

[Kraenen]

There are many issues beyond equality that are associated with left and right wing ideologies. Maybe this infographic will help.

And those usually if not always connect to social equality/inequality. I mean just look under "society": Survival of the fittest for Right, One for all and all for one for the Left.

[Underverse]

Not just human nature. But nature and the cosmos itself.

Nature and the cosmos are what? Cruel and careless? I think that's a broad generalization that ignores heterogeneity in the universe. And considering that heterogeneity is fundamental for your argument, I don't think this is an argument you can make.

- - - Updated - - -

And those usually if not always connect to social equality/inequality. I mean just look under "society": Survival of the fittest for Right, One for all and all for one for the Left.

Sure, some of the issues are based around equality. But that's not your argument. You argument is that all of the issues that define the right/left dichotomy are manifestations of equality. I have a hard time seeing this for issues like diplomacy vs aggression, progression vs conservation, self-reliance vs fulfillment, and a plethora of other binaries.

[Moralgy]

God Bless the Right Wing May Real Americans Always Prosper

http://i.imgur.com/HOuweCG.png

That was beautiful

[Saucexorzski]

Nature and the cosmos are what? Cruel and careless? I think that's a broad generalization that ignores heterogeneity in the universe. And considering that heterogeneity is fundamental for your argument, I don't think this is an argument you can make.

i think what he is getting at is Life in the general since of what we know on earth, is all about energy exchange, and every living thing consumes life in some fashion for this energy, be it still living life or life that once lived. Cooperation happens sure, but it is very rare and more obtain one side benefits more then the other. If i am completely off base Ray, sorry >.>