Left and Rzzight

[Pedro I Rengel]

The main, only real difference really between leftists and right wingers is that leftists see politics as the pursuit of attaining a perfect society, whilst right wingers see politics as a means to deal with what's actually out there.

Leftists want to start the world, right wingers consider it to already have started.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The main, only real difference really between leftists and right wingers is that leftists see politics as the pursuit of attaining a perfect society, whilst right wingers see politics as a means to deal with what's actually out there.

Leftists want to start the world, right wingers consider it to already have started.

There's some truth in this, sure.
On the other hand the conservatives have tended not to notice how some things are not inetivable. And how their sense of the inevitable has helped the rich use others for cannon fodder, for example. IOW conservatives seem less likely to see what is already there in many ways - like all the noble wars and interventions.

Conservatives would not have wanted to break off from England. And they didn't want to.

Oh, Tommy J. always trying to reach that perfect society. Come Ben F. we like the Lightning rods, but without kings we'd be lost.

[Mr Reasonable]

I don't go too deep with it. I think that in the context of American politics, the left wants the poor to eat, and the right wants the rich to eat the poor.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Well, you illustrate my point nicely.

First of all, it's kinda dumb to think republicans, specially all republicans, want the rich to eat the poor.

It's how it is framed. you frame it in a sort of vacuum. Poor people hungry, feed poor people.

Right wingers frame it with the world as is. Well, this is the case. It starts with this is the case, way before this should be the case. And from this is the case we can see what we can do. Maybe get 'em jobs. It's complicated.

[Mr Reasonable]

I should have said republican politicians generally vote in favor of trickle down economics and democrat ones generally propose that it be more than a trickle and that the means of moving the money be a bit less obfuscated.

[Pedro I Rengel]

American independence, and I do mean throughout the continent, was a very conflicted tension between radical masons and slave owners in an unstable alliance against European loyalists.

In a sense, the rich guys were the independentists. I'm willing to bet, and I know for a fact this was the case in Venezuela, that most poor or just barely reasonably well off people were European loyalists. In their minds, if someone is shaking up management, just when they figured out how to work with the old bosses, they are a hassle.

European loyalists were indeed the reasonable ones. Masons were crazy radicals. But with the mix of the three groups, the first great society ever got rid of slavery. I'm not saying do away with the left. Only leftists think in terms of doing away with people that disagree.

[Pedro I Rengel]

That's it, right wingers consider that a prosperous economy, to help this historical phenomenon of sorts be at its most unhindered productive best is likeliest to help people not go hungry. Working with what's there.

The left FIRST looks at what should be. People shouldn't be hungry. shouldn't be poor. And THEN they look around. "Hey, this guy's got a bunch of money."

[Mr Reasonable]

I dunno man. Trump does publicly call for the arrests of all kinds of people and deporting a ton of people so he seems to kind of want to make some people go away.

But about the Venezuela thing. I have over the last few years met and killed a little time with a number of refugees from Syria. Mostly Aleppo. They don't give a shit about whether Russia or the US ends up with the pipeline. They just want Assad to get back in control because under him they could cook breakfast and walk in the park and all that shit. Now that Trump has pledged to surrender there I guess they get their way.

[Mr Reasonable]

That's it, right wingers consider that a prosperous economy, to help this historical phenomenon of sorts be at its most unhindered productive best is likeliest to help people not go hungry. Working with what's there.

The left FIRST looks at what should be. People shouldn't be hungry. shouldn't be poor. And THEN they look around. "Hey, this guy's got a bunch of money."

I don't think that what needs to happen is a radical change in one direction or the other. How about let's see if we can make the average job pay the average rent, figure out if we can make antibiotics as accessible here as they are in say...Mexico, and sort out a way for a person to get an education at a public institution for less than 100 grand. If the economy can't bear that, then maybe we need to get back to war or something.

[Mr Reasonable]

The problem is that one side says, "I want all your money!" and the other says, "I'm not giving you anything!".

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yeah but you're doing this thing where you purport to only present "a" problem while insinuating that the only possible solutions have already been thought up, and are the leftists ones.

This is possible because you frame it as what should be FIRST. Rent SHOULD be affordable, etc.

[Mr Reasonable]

So what's the solution? Or is it already in play? I don't think it should take an entire generation to implement policy that affords the average person an average house. Does that make me leftist?

[Pedro I Rengel]

They're not saying "I'm not giving you anything." They are saying "your plan will never work, and this is why." And even in some instances, like with China has an actual functioning central planned economy, "your plan should never work, and this is why."

And then the left is like "what's with all this this is why bullshit? You just cheap!"

And then all discussion is shut down. And obviously, they will not then give you the money.

[Pedro I Rengel]

As I have been saying, as a right winger, my solution is to see how things are FIRST. But that's a "the" solution, I truly am not interested in that totalitarian crap.

The solution is to not be such an asshole (the left as a pathos, not you personally) and talk to people. You know, talk. This involves not labeling them as evil before sitting down, as who the fuck would actually negociate with the devil. Nobody.

[Mr Reasonable]

Yeah. Seems about right.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Just, consider that these countrymen of yours might actually have a point, and not just a bottomless pit of Greed or Evil, depending on the situation.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Consider that the insults left has for right is Evil and Greedy.

The insults of right for left is Idiot and Snowflake.

One is moral. The other has to do with intellectual discipline.

[Mr Reasonable]

Just, consider that these countrymen of yours might actually have a point, and not just a bottomless pit of Greed or Evil, depending on the situation.

No I completely get the point. And I'm not talking about the majority of my countrymen. I'm talking about the very, very small minority who are influencing policy to favor them and who continue to rig the game. Like...why let the average person buy the average house when we can pass laws and implement policy that makes it easier for us to buy them and rent them to the average person, and harder for the average person to buy them for themselves.

[Mr Reasonable]

Consider that the insults left has for right is Evil and Greedy.

The insults of right for left is Idiot and Snowflake.

One is moral. The other has to do with intellectual discipline.

You should follow Trump Jr's twitter. He's an evil greedy idiot snowflake. It's like watching those oddly satisfying video compilations on youtube, or a trainwreck, or staring at a textured wall on lsd.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I fucking love Don Jr.

The ones you hate the most are the ones you have to learn to listen to first.

Like I might agree with you about the select few passing horrible legislation looking out for interests they have that conflict with mine, but I might be thinking of an entirely different group and draw radically different conclusioins.

Like the Koch brothers, currently tactical allies of the left regarding all this immigration stuff.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I suppose you know the answer to that housing regulation idea already.

You started with a should, housing SHOULD be affordable for all, and thus in your solution obviated a whole host of other very real problems.

[Mr Reasonable]

Koch brothers have always been bad. Mark Levin is currently bashing them, but 2 years ago he was little more than a mouthpiece for koch funded think tanks.

The problem I have with Don Jr is one that a lot of people have with a lot of people. He doesn't seem to run on any principles. While I understand the utility of this, and have myself in the past told people straight to their face in response to criticisms of be based on my lack of principles that I don't adhere to them because they I could be held to my own words or become easier to predict which could both be to the detriment of my ability to manage others...I still see it as a character flaw in some cases.

Like when you tweet at 2 in the afternoon that someone is a snowflake, then at 3 in the afternoon you tweet that you're a victim of some people saying things that hurt your feelings....it just comes off as weak.

[Mr Reasonable]

I suppose you know the answer to that housing regulation idea already.

You started with a should, housing SHOULD be affordable for all, and thus in your solution obviated a whole host of other very real problems.

I think that any solution to that sort of thing is going to be determined by a variety of factors. Will the invisible hand just take care of it? Will it come about as a result of policy? Will there be harder work and more discipline on the part of the people who want the houses? Will there be some concessions on the side of the companies that are buying them all up and turning them all into rentals? Probably take a bit of all those if it were to happen. And I don't see a lot of problems with any of those things in and of themselves. My concern would be that parties might be actively working against this outcome in order to profit of making it impossible, or less probable that people can own homes.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yes, who profits and what is actually good policy is a complicated issue that needs to be looked at.

So long as we don' reflexively agree that the left already has a good solution. Evil profiteering often comes from the left, this is important. Until you recognize the evil in your own camp, stfu about Mark Levin (whoever that is).

[Karpel Tunnel]

American independence, and I do mean throughout the continent, was a very conflicted tension between radical masons and slave owners in an unstable alliance against European loyalists.

In a sense, the rich guys were the independentists. I'm willing to bet, and I know for a fact this was the case in Venezuela, that most poor or just barely reasonably well off people were European loyalists. In their minds, if someone is shaking up management, just when they figured out how to work with the old bosses, they are a hassle.

European loyalists were indeed the reasonable ones. Masons were crazy radicals. But with the mix of the three groups, the first great society ever got rid of slavery. I'm not saying do away with the left. Only leftists think in terms of doing away with people that disagree.

Peachy, you get the point however. You likely defend things that were once things that conservative considered 'communist' using the term metaphorically for 'evil' 'bad' 'starry-eyed idiocy' or whatever. Conservatives defend the current structures of abuse or one's in the 50s or ones from some period of time they consider the good. Or perhaps they think things were never good, and hence they too, like the liberals want to reform or change things to some as yet unrealized reality.