Young Left vs. Old Left.

[Tijuana]

maybe read the article. its more "adulty" than a top 20 X list on buzzfeed with zero source work.

Who said I didn't? But you, based on this statement, CLEARLY didn't read mine. If you did, you would see that it speaks of things in the public knowledge, that you and everyone else is fully aware of, and therefore doesn't need any source work. Why not actually challenge what I posted, and tell me what YOU think, instead of substituting credentialing for having your own actual opinion?

Don't you find it odd to refute the validity of a series of words, without reading them? How is that objective?

- - - Updated - - -

On the big traditionally liberal issues (health care, education, income inequality) they certainly have. Most of the move took place when Bill took office.

You're right that they've moved more to the left on political correctness.

But to me, that equals a less liberal party because I view the political correctness as a nonsense sideshow and the social contract issues as important things that affect us every day.

As to, "you might be the only human that holds that view". Nope. Use google.

How does openly espousing Marxism (income equality) a move to the center? You could not even say this idea out loud when I was a kid, because the world was so anti-Communist. How is Marxism a view that is more centrist than not-Marxism, exactly? I'm not mocking you. I'm genuinely curious how you can hold this view. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think most people would find this to be the central tenet, of the most radically left system of government the world has ever known. In fact, there are only a handful of countries left who practice this, and the history of it was always murder, suffering, and abject poverty.

I agree that the PC monster doesn't seem to have a real political ideology, and it distracts from their policy agenda, since you can't really legislate speech in the US.

[shrunken]

Young Left is a bit of a misnomer, since the generation that will be coming into adulthood over the next decade are already polling as the most conservative voting bloc since the 1950's.

[Glnger]

Who said I didn't? But you, based on this statement, CLEARLY didn't read mine. If you did, you would see that it speaks of things in the public knowledge, that you and everyone else is fully aware of, and therefore doesn't need any source work. Why not actually challenge what I posted, and tell me what YOU think, instead of substituting credentialing for having your own actual opinion?

Don't you find it odd to refute the validity of a series of words, without reading them? How is that objective?

no, for the same reason a series of words in the National Geographic is worth more than a series of words posted from InfoWars.

[Tijuana]

no, for the same reason a series of words in the National Geographic is worth more than a series of words posted from InfoWars.

So you admit to being willfully ignorant. This is why I never link things when you guys ask. You don't read them anyway. (It was actually kind of a PIA to remove all the photo text so, thanks for nothing.)

Why is your ideology so fragile, that it can't handle being challenged? Doesn't it become stronger via opposition, not weaker? SAD!

Why pretend to have the intellectual capability to debate ideas, if you won't even consider the other person's position, let alone attempt to deconstruct it?

[Glnger]

So you admit to being willfully ignorant. This is why I never link things when you guys ask. You don't read them anyway. (It was actually kind of a PIA to remove all the photo text so, thanks for nothing.)

Why is your ideology so fragile, that it can't handle being challenged? Doesn't it become stronger via opposition, not weaker? SAD!

The fact that I say exactly why you're article is meaningless to me because it's not sourced and you try and talk around that fact, either tells me you don't understand the importance of sourcing, or do not understand what scholarly work looks like, or why I refuse to take non-peer-reviewed articles seriously.

I wouldn't think I'd need to explain the importance of these things, but.... there you have it.

[Tijuana]

The fact that I say exactly why you're article is meaningless to me because it's not sourced and you try and talk around that fact, either tells me you don't understand the importance of sourcing, or do not understand what scholarly work looks like, or why I refuse to take non-peer-reviewed articles seriously.

I wouldn't think I'd need to explain the importance of these things, but.... there you have it.

Oh come off it. Just read the damn thing. You are just embarrassing yourself at this point. Begone if this all you got. I don't want to waste my time with you, if you don't have the courage to read what I posted, yet want to argue against it.

Public knowledge requires no sourcing. Do you even know what sourcing means? If you say Trump is the 45th president, you don't need a source for that. Opinions don't need sources either. (The few items in the article that are attributed to individual quotes, ARE sourced anyway. So there is that.)

What a waste of time you have sucked me in to. Why even post?

[Glnger]

Oh come off it. Just read the damn thing. You are just embarrassing yourself at this point. Begone if this all you got. I don't want to waste my time with you, if you don't have the courage to read what I posted, yet want to argue against it.

Public knowledge requires no sourcing. Do you even know what sourcing means? If you say Trump is the 45th president, you don't need a source for that. Opinions don't need sources either. (The few items in the article that are attributed to individual quotes, ARE sourced anyway. So there is that.)

What a waste of time you have sucked me in to. Why even post?

that moment you realize the article you posted a page ago was an opinion piece all along......................................................................

again, see my sig. /thread.

[Tijuana]

that moment you realize the article you posted a page ago was an opinion piece all along......................................................................

again, see my sig. /thread.

Did you think it was anything different from that? Yours is an opinion piece too. Do you have some sort of bizarre notion that opinion articles are not worth reading, or something? I mean, there are newspapers that print nothing but opinions. Do you think Conservative and Liberal are terms that can be applied to other humans, in a manner that is NOT opinion?

What a waste of time you are. I'll never fall for it again....

Also, you are conceding that you are WRONG, by not reading what I posted. JFK did a lot of things that were Conservative, and among them are things that are wholly taboo to current day Democrats. My point was right. You are wrong. Thanks for playing.

[Glnger]

Don't mind Tijuana, he is usually wrong. Then when he gets called out on it, he either bitches out or tries to play the semantics game where he still loses.

/10characthers.

[Louisa Bannon]

I think the 'new' left has alienated a lot of people who would be happy to support unions and policies that ensure a strong national (as opposed to globalised) economy and strong social security system, but don't want to support what the 'new' left seem to really care about (identity politics, mostly). In fact I'm starting to see a lot of rhetoric from the left that opposing globalized capitalism means you're racist and xenophobic.

These left, right labels may not be that useful is really the main thing. It's divide and conquer, have the peons fight among themselves about party affiliations. Control the means of exchange and the rest is irrelevant.

Real politics is between the 1% and the 99%. When it gets out of hand, you'll see a "correction." What's weird is how the 1% think they can just keep getting away with it, even in this era of globalization and information overdose. Of course, right now they are still getting away with it because they keep shifting the focus away from themselves and most people are fairly stupid.

But yet again, the Hamptons are not a defensible position.

Here's the solution: you spank the 1% and tell them to stop being greedy assholes and use hybrid economy techniques to grow your nation. Everybody wins, nobody is left desperate or out in the cold. And yeah, that means socialism as your safety net because the "kindness of strangers" won't cut it.

Corporations probably cannot be allowed to continue in their present state. In fact, this is how the 1% have made themselves "supra-national" and evade regulation.

Some degree of nationalism is probably healthy, unless it becomes an obsession.

[Deleted]

I don't think I understand.
They cite "new left" parties that present themselves as euro-skeptics. But they describe it as hyper-globalist.
They are populists at heart, but they get lumped with what was described as "coastal elite" in the US.

[JohnBrown1917]

As the political realignment continues, one wonders what is the actual future of older EU parties that once paraded around as "Left," but have since become in many ways more Free Market oriented than the supposed radical right?

Our center right and center-liberals parties have always been the most free market oriented. What is new? They have never been seen as left wing.
Center left has changed a bit, sure, but left of center-left? Not so much.
'

[XDurionX]

An interesting analysis. I personally see "left wing" and "right wing" politics differently to how its currently defined; a spectrum of control on one side, and freedom on the other.

The furthest on the left wing is complete control, big government, central planning (socialism/communistic). The furthest on the right wing is complete freedom, no government, no central planning (anarchist).

This article alludes to this kind of spectrum, implying the modern day "left" cares not for socialism which requires borders and nationality, but rather just social justice through whatever means necessary.

I'd also argue the modern day "right" is actually just "less-left". (even the alt-right)

All current governments and political parties in Australia, UK, US etc on both wings are actually all "left", some are just less than others. This is true because they ALL grow in size, control and thus power.

I have read a lot on these forums, but dubbing anarchism as extreme right is certainly a new one.

[JohnBrown1917]

There's also a shift in America, where the left is pushing for more free markets than the GOP. The GOP has been consistently pushing protectionism and restricted markets. You are seeing it with tariffs, walls, immigration controls, taxation, threats. When did the right start hating free markets so damn much?

Ye, its why the dems are seen as center right in Europe.

[Theodarzna]

Our center right and center-liberals parties have always been the most free market oriented. What is new? They have never been seen as left wing.
Center left has changed a bit, sure, but left of center-left? Not so much.
'

I suppose now they are much more anti-democratic and pro-Technocracy and managerialism.

[JohnBrown1917]

I suppose now they are much more anti-democratic and pro-Technocracy and managerialism.

Where are you getting that from? I have never heard such things from our center right parties, as scummy as they are.

[Manabomb]

I can't speak for the EU but, in the US, the modern left is completely unrecognizable to a person of my age. They stand for few, if any, of the things they did in the 1980's and 1990's. In fact, on some big issues, such as free speech, there has been a complete reversal.

Change is the only constant.

Speak for yourself. We fully embrace free speech.

We also fully embrace freely criticizing that free speech, and freely denouncing that free speech. Not to mention, free speech is a requirement only on the governmental level and this does not include things that are partially government funded (universities because I know where you were goinglol).

On the business and personal level? I don't have to tolerate your nazi-loving free speech and I won't make the government do anything about it. I will.

[Taso]

What I find funny about the young left vs the old left is that many on the young far left aspect advocate either for end to globalization or alter globalization. Its just like the new old right vs the "new" young right in which the "new" also wants an end to globalization as well.