The right is focused on enforcing and upholding hierarchy, and oppression of minority groups. The left is focused on combating entrenched hierarchy and oppression. Simple enough.
Are you really so single minded that you cannot see the negatives you are glossing over? Hierarchy is an accepted part of society, human nature, and is the main mechanism by which resentment is kept at bay.
If you have ever dismissed someone as “stupid” you are bought into that. You accept/assert that some people don’t have the same cognitive ability as you, and this is a bad thing, and what they have to say is LESS VALUABLE than what you have to say.
As a generally progressive and intelligent species, we can no doubt find a place for that person in society based on their other merits, but don’t get it fucked up.
Appealing to some vague sense of “Human Nature” is a naturalistic fallacy, whether or not something is natural does not make it better or worse.
Secondly, hierarchy usually presents itself in unjustifiable manners, such as the Capitalist/Worker hierarchy, which Socialism abolishes. These can be replaced with democratically appointed representatives, or with direct democracy itself, both of which are less hierarchical.
You seem to have taken the weakest part of what I said and ignored the strongest part
To suggest that hierarchy doesn’t have value doesn’t require a naturalistic observation. Rape occurs in nature, we can ideally do without it, so let’s dispense of the natural argument altogether if you find it so distasteful as a correlative observation.
Simply demonstrating contempt for something on the basis that it is observable is as equally useless. Communicating with other people sometimes results in harm as well, but no one possesses the systemic understanding to reliably dismiss communication as more harmful than good, so we leave it in place, as its benefits seem to be widely accepted as outweighing the negatives.
Hierarchy, is a just occurrence that is of demonstrative value, when compared to a total lack of it. More accurately, removing hierarchy is demonstrably harmful as mentioned.
Suggesting that the right is only interested in maintaining it regardless of circumstance (which is what I think you implied, but correct me) and that the left is only interested in removing it, is as false as the argument that either of those things is good.
This is the flavour of oversimplification and unintelligent polarity that makes fence-sitting appealling to many, trapped between overzealous, under-informed members of the “red” or “blue” team.
Leftism is opposition to unjust hierarchy, yes, while rightism is entrenching it. Monarchism and Feudalism are right wing, as is Capitalism, as is fascism.
The basis of Socialism is of removing the unjustifiable hierarchy of the Worker/Owner divide. The basis of Communism is going even further and removing the statist element as well. Anarchism is additionally fully leftist.
Fence-sitting is appealing because many people benefit by supporting the status quo, or are ill-informed.
The right is focused on enforcing and upholding hierarchy, and oppression of minority groups. The left is focused on combating entrenched hierarchy and oppression. Simple enough.
Thats your biased opinion.
It’s not an opinion, it’s the definition of right and left.
Are you really so single minded that you cannot see the negatives you are glossing over? Hierarchy is an accepted part of society, human nature, and is the main mechanism by which resentment is kept at bay.
If you have ever dismissed someone as “stupid” you are bought into that. You accept/assert that some people don’t have the same cognitive ability as you, and this is a bad thing, and what they have to say is LESS VALUABLE than what you have to say.
As a generally progressive and intelligent species, we can no doubt find a place for that person in society based on their other merits, but don’t get it fucked up.
Appealing to some vague sense of “Human Nature” is a naturalistic fallacy, whether or not something is natural does not make it better or worse.
Secondly, hierarchy usually presents itself in unjustifiable manners, such as the Capitalist/Worker hierarchy, which Socialism abolishes. These can be replaced with democratically appointed representatives, or with direct democracy itself, both of which are less hierarchical.
You seem to have taken the weakest part of what I said and ignored the strongest part
To suggest that hierarchy doesn’t have value doesn’t require a naturalistic observation. Rape occurs in nature, we can ideally do without it, so let’s dispense of the natural argument altogether if you find it so distasteful as a correlative observation.
Simply demonstrating contempt for something on the basis that it is observable is as equally useless. Communicating with other people sometimes results in harm as well, but no one possesses the systemic understanding to reliably dismiss communication as more harmful than good, so we leave it in place, as its benefits seem to be widely accepted as outweighing the negatives.
Hierarchy, is a just occurrence that is of demonstrative value, when compared to a total lack of it. More accurately, removing hierarchy is demonstrably harmful as mentioned.
Suggesting that the right is only interested in maintaining it regardless of circumstance (which is what I think you implied, but correct me) and that the left is only interested in removing it, is as false as the argument that either of those things is good.
This is the flavour of oversimplification and unintelligent polarity that makes fence-sitting appealling to many, trapped between overzealous, under-informed members of the “red” or “blue” team.
Leftism is opposition to unjust hierarchy, yes, while rightism is entrenching it. Monarchism and Feudalism are right wing, as is Capitalism, as is fascism.
The basis of Socialism is of removing the unjustifiable hierarchy of the Worker/Owner divide. The basis of Communism is going even further and removing the statist element as well. Anarchism is additionally fully leftist.
Fence-sitting is appealing because many people benefit by supporting the status quo, or are ill-informed.
Oswald Bates. This person talks like Oswald Bates.