Why the Democrats are not a left-wing party

[Skynet]

A Democratic governor in Nevada proposes a bill that would allow tech companies to form their own separate local governments.

[clonkertink]

A Democratic governor in Nevada proposes a bill that would allow tech companies to form their own separate local governments.

Oh, so we’re going full shadowrun, then?
Yikes.

[Haibane]

Scary. To whom would they be accountable?

[TheGlyphstone]

Scary. To whom would they be accountable?

If they are equivalent to counties, then they would be accountable to the state level government like any other county. Not quite at the level of extraterritorial sovereignty yet sadly.

[stormwyrm]

Scary. To whom would they be accountable?

Presumably to the State of Nevada, same as county governments are supposed to be. However, that still sounds like a step closer to the distributed republics of Snow Crash and many more cyberpunk dystopias than I'd like.

[TheGlyphstone]

Doesn't Disney have something equivalent to this in Florida already?

[Haibane]

Oopsie my bad, I misread "counties" as "countries". Sorry.

[Yukina]

Doesn't Disney have something equivalent to this in Florida already?

Yep :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKYEXjMlKKQ

[RedRose]

Who asked you that question? Are people REALLY that badly informed?

someone online
and yes, they are
though I suspect some want it that way
I've also been asked if French ladies go half dressed
I replied topless is actually forbidden for women (perhaps not at the beach I dunno)
People also seem to assume prostitution is legal everywhere in Europe on the level of Netherlands

[HannibalBarca]

someone online
and yes, they are
though I suspect some want it that way
I've also been asked if French ladies go half dressed
I replied topless is actually forbidden for women (perhaps not at the beach I dunno)
People also seem to assume prostitution is legal everywhere in Europe on the level of Netherlands

There's an education problem in the United States.  Being a teacher and a parent, I've seen both sides, and I can put the great majority of the blame on parenting, particularly parenting that is preoccupied, lazy, or by parents indoctrinated by toxic religions or philosophies.  Considering how many people in the U.S. are anti-science because of their religion, you could draw a line back to toxic religion being the primary problem in the United States.

[Oniya]

someone online
and yes, they are
though I suspect some want it that way
I've also been asked if French ladies go half dressed
I replied topless is actually forbidden for women (perhaps not at the beach I dunno)
People also seem to assume prostitution is legal everywhere in Europe on the level of Netherlands

I've known some people who would consider a crop-top and biker shorts 'half dressed'.  Fairly sure that the beach thing is only at designated beaches.

[Cydaea]

It's been said, but Left in the US is used as a relative term. Left of what? What we've got. I think it's important to keep the scaling in mind. In particular I've come to hear the difference be used to 'lump' populations in a negative way often more than anything else.

[Skynet]

Hasn't gotten as much coverage, but it looks like military intervention in Somalia is in the works.

[TheVillain]

I've said it before, that if you look at the actual positions involved the Dems are a pretty hard-right party too. They're just not "we should be allowed to hunt non-white homeless people for sport" level hard right so the Republicans can't tell the difference between them and actual Communists anymore.

[The Seeker]

I've only scanned through some of these responses but I was still surprised by the definitions. Perhaps I still only have a very limited or basic understanding, but I thought liberals and leftists were pretty much the same and also that liberals/leftists were all about social justice and equality. My problem with most people who consider themselves democrats or progressives is that my assumption is that they preach equality, but only to people that they deem are worthy of equality. For example, anyone who they are against it seems like they are very combative and non-tolerant. The message I get is not of change but of literally eliminating anyone they don't agree with either through cancel culture, doxxing or straight up public humiliation with permanent stamps on their character that indicate no chance of redemption of character.

So my "problem" could be in my perception or definition of who I think is what, but regardless the behavior described above is still something I can not support. I believe that we all make mistakes and that we should be given room to move forward and grow as individuals and societies. I also don't believe that a combative and dismissive nature will solve anything long term. The only thing accomplished by fighting one another with hatred is eventual physical violence and possibly a war. Nothing will come of it except destruction and wasted time.

[Oniya]

The difference comes in when you start comparing American politicians to European politicians.  From what I hear, Bernie Sanders (almost universally described in America as 'far left') is maybe just a skootch left of center for the spectrum in Europe. 

However, I'm a math geek (this is relevant, I swear).  A while back, I was having a conversation about candidates, and I came up with the analogy of driving on a winter road.  If you jerk the wheel too hard in either direction, you have problems, and the only way to get back into control is to keep pointing the nose of the car in the direction you want to go.  Jerking the wheel hard in the other direction is only going to cause more problems.  No hard braking or acceleration either.  Keep things moving smoothly.  Unfortunately, there are folks who want to jerk the wheel.  We've had the wheel jerked in one direction, and it was hell, but you can't fix that by jerking the wheel the other way.

In math, when we're looking at smooth functions, there's something called the 'Intermediate Value Theorem' (I told you it was relevant) which says that - in a smooth, continuous function - if the function hits two particular values, it's also going to hit every value in between.  So in order to get to 'liberal' from 'far right', you're most likely going to spend a bunch of time in the 'less far right'.

[The Seeker]

Well said Oniya. I totally got your winter road analogy but I can't help but correct you on the part of pointing the nose of the car in the direction you want to go. That works under normal driving conditions. When you lose control of the car on ice or a bad winter road, well...you've got no control. So it doesn't matter which way you turn the wheel, inertia has taken over. Now, if you were driving too fast and you lose traction on asphalt, I think your analogy would work a little better.

Please forgive my compulsive need to point that out.

To the subject at hand, I appreciate your take on these matters and I agree. Balance is key. At this point though I don't care about the politics as much as I care about how people are going about defending their politics. Regardless of our beliefs, respect for one another has been lost and so I find myself asking what the point of all if it is if we're just going to hate each other? Why have a system at all if we've been reduced to primitive emotion with no regard for our own social structures?

So I say forget the politics until we learn how to be civil to one another again and our elected officials stop acting like children with the banter on social media and on the floors of their respective branches. Appealing to voters this way should have never been normalized, acting like children instead of handling business as adults and not compromising the integrity of character that should be expected from individuals who are elected to lead the people.

[Skynet]

I've only scanned through some of these responses but I was still surprised by the definitions. Perhaps I still only have a very limited or basic understanding, but I thought liberals and leftists were pretty much the same and also that liberals/leftists were all about social justice and equality. My problem with most people who consider themselves democrats or progressives is that my assumption is that they preach equality, but only to people that they deem are worthy of equality. For example, anyone who they are against it seems like they are very combative and non-tolerant. The message I get is not of change but of literally eliminating anyone they don't agree with either through cancel culture, doxxing or straight up public humiliation with permanent stamps on their character that indicate no chance of redemption of character.

So my "problem" could be in my perception or definition of who I think is what, but regardless the behavior described above is still something I can not support. I believe that we all make mistakes and that we should be given room to move forward and grow as individuals and societies. I also don't believe that a combative and dismissive nature will solve anything long term. The only thing accomplished by fighting one another with hatred is eventual physical violence and possibly a war. Nothing will come of it except destruction and wasted time.

A thing to consider is that with the exception of freedom of religion, in the USA leftists and liberals who preach tolerance do so in regards to tolerance for aspects of a person's identity to which they have no control. Race, gender, and sexual orientation being the big ones. Endless tolerance for all is bound to become contradictory, as tolerating the intolerant creates a situation of less tolerance for certain groups. Many on the left have trouble explaining this, in that the American right is very much intolerant of people for things they have no control over.

In some cases it's good to be intolerant. A hospital shouldn't be forced to employ anti-vaxxers spreading dangerous misinformation to patients, and an office is well within their rights to fire a Neo-Nazi creating a hostile work environment for employees of color. Nobody is truly tolerant in the all-encompassing sense. Democrats and leftists who practice what they preach take the "judge people by their actions, not the circumstances out of their control" form of tolerance.

Same for cancel culture. There was a thread on this subject earlier, and like the discussion of tolerance it's something everyone does, and not just liberals and leftists. Even hardcore "free speech Libertarian" types are in favor of this, such as in regards to corporations engaging in union-busting. Or what the GOP did to the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against the Iraq War. The question should instead ask "why is this person being cancelled? Is it justified? Are the consequences of their punishment fitting the 'crime?'

Well said Oniya. I totally got your winter road analogy but I can't help but correct you on the part of pointing the nose of the car in the direction you want to go. That works under normal driving conditions. When you lose control of the car on ice or a bad winter road, well...you've got no control. So it doesn't matter which way you turn the wheel, inertia has taken over. Now, if you were driving too fast and you lose traction on asphalt, I think your analogy would work a little better.

Please forgive my compulsive need to point that out.

To the subject at hand, I appreciate your take on these matters and I agree. Balance is key. At this point though I don't care about the politics as much as I care about how people are going about defending their politics. Regardless of our beliefs, respect for one another has been lost and so I find myself asking what the point of all if it is if we're just going to hate each other? Why have a system at all if we've been reduced to primitive emotion with no regard for our own social structures?

So I say forget the politics until we learn how to be civil to one another again and our elected officials stop acting like children with the banter on social media and on the floors of their respective branches. Appealing to voters this way should have never been normalized, acting like children instead of handling business as adults and not compromising the integrity of character that should be expected from individuals who are elected to lead the people.

I should note that civility only goes so far, and there are many people who you cannot change just by being a nicer person to them. Q Anon is perhaps the most depressing example. Millions of friends and families have lost loved ones to the cult, and did everything they could in trying to get them out. Deconverting people from hateful ideologies and conspiracy theories is something most of us aren't prepared to do. Daryl Davis does good work in getting people out of the KKK, but it's something he does for a living with decades of experience, and we can't all be that person or have that level of access to free time and training.

And then of course there are the people who have ill intent and want to do harm, like the alt-right among the GOP. Many Republicans have limited empathy for others, so they're unlikely to change unless they or their loved ones end up personally affected by a policy.

Niceness is important, but it's not an all-purpose tool guaranteed to fix all problems.

[stormwyrm]

Endless tolerance for all is bound to become contradictory, as tolerating the intolerant creates a situation of less tolerance for certain groups. Many on the left have trouble explaining this, in that the American right is very much intolerant of people for things they have no control over.

Karl Popper I think put it best in The Open Society and Its Enemies (see page 265):

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

I think it's one reason why prohibition of incitement to violence is very common in the TOS of many online services.

[Saria]

Perhaps I still only have a very limited or basic understanding, but I thought liberals and leftists were pretty much the same and also that liberals/leftists were all about social justice and equality.

Liberals and leftism are two very different things. The only reason liberals look “left” in the United States is because American politics (and culture, generally) is so freakishly far-right that basically anything that isn’t outright Nazism looks “left” by comparison. Democrats are liberals. Democrats are not left-wing.

Obviously I’m going to have to grossly simplify things, because these are deep topics, and both liberalism and leftism come in many, many different flavours, some of which even overlap (for example, liberals will borrow socialist ideas like welfare, and socialists will accept liberal compromises to create social democracies). But some of the general differences are:

Liberalism	Leftism
Focuses on what’s best for individuals, even if it means other individuals suffer, limited only by the harm principle (you can’t directly harm others).	Focuses on what’s best for the collective of all individuals, even if it means restricting some individual freedoms.
It’s more important that people should be free to say whatever they want (short of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, etc.).	It’s more important that people should be safe from fear and threats, even if that means restricting some speech (like hate speech).
Private ownership of the means of production.	Collective ownership of the means of production.
Laissez-faire markets and economies.	Managed economies to limit waste and environmental damage.
Generally doesn’t care about social justice issues like feminism, racial equality, LGBTQ2S+ stuff, except to say that the government should treat everyone equally and not care about those things (that is, cares only about legal inequality).	Cares a lot about social inequality (not just legal inequality) and cultural imbalances (like privilege and media representation and so on).
Government is a “necessary evil”, and should be limited as much as possible, usually only to public works, defence, and policing, the latter two being justification for giving the state the power to use violence.	Government is an unnecessary evil and shouldn’t have the power to use violence, public works and civil administration don’t need hierarchies, power, or force—just collective agreements—and defence and policing are mostly evil outright.
It’s fine that there are some super rich and some poor; that’s just nature, and the “invisible hand” will make everything work out for the best in the end. (That’s more “classical” liberal thinking; “modern” liberal thinking has borrowed from the left, and says the state should provide welfare when needed, because the state should do what it can to help the individual flourish. This is basically the only fundamental theoretical difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.)	Resources should be redistributed to eliminate poverty, maximize health and well-being.

There are plenty of other differences, and plenty of ideologies that borrow from both liberalism and leftism. Yes, both are basically “all about social justice and equality”, but both view those terms in very different ways. The Democratic Party is liberal. The Democratic party is not progressive, socialist, or left-wing.

My problem with most people who consider themselves democrats or progressives is that my assumption is that they preach equality, but only to people that they deem are worthy of equality. For example, anyone who they are against it seems like they are very combative and non-tolerant.

I won’t speak for Democrats, but you have a bafflingly bizarre notion of what progressives mean when they talk about equality.

First of all, progressives deem everyone worthy of equality. That’s the whole point.

But you seem to think that being treated equally means being treated nicely. Where the hell did you get that notion? Being treated equally doesn’t necessarily mean you will be treated the same. If you are an asshole and I am not, progressives will treat you and I very differently. That doesn’t mean we are not being treated equally. If I also act like an asshole, I will be treated as badly as you… and if you stop acting like an asshole, then you will be treated as nicely as I was. That’s equality.

In fact, that’s basically a pre-Marxian socialist maxim: “to each according to his contribution”. In other words, you get what you give. If you give out racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.… shitty treatment in general… you will get shitty treatment in return. If you give out good vibes, help others, and generally be a nice person, you’ll get the same in return. And the equality is that that rule I just described applies equally to everyone.

But it’s not just a socialist maxim, it’s something that even a preschooler understands: It’s not fair to treat everyone equally. It boggles my mind that you don’t understand this, or that you think “democrats or progressives” don’t understand it. Maybe the first step in understanding people who are not on the same political team as you is to stop assuming they’re idiots.

The message I get is not of change but of literally eliminating anyone they don't agree with either through cancel culture, doxxing or straight up public humiliation with permanent stamps on their character that indicate no chance of redemption of character.

You’re getting that message from right-wing media. I’m going to assume you’re an intelligent person and ask you a simple question: Do you think you are getting a full and honest picture of the left by listening to propaganda from their opponents? Hm? Well, do you? Do you actually believe that left-wing beliefs are what Fox News describes? Do you actually think left-wing people are the way Bill O’Reilly spins them, or that they do the things Tucker Carlson says they do?

Do you want to know what a right-winger would seem like to me, if I were only to listen to the most extreme left-wing descriptions of them? Let me tell you now, it won’t be flattering.

Perhaps you should get out of your media bubble, and find out what real left-wingers are like.

For now, I’m just going to say four things about the left, and “cancel culture”/doxxing/etc.:

• It is hilarious that right-wing media actually managed to convince simple-minded dupes that make up their audience that the left is the side doing all the “cancelling”, doxxng, and so on. Seriously, the right invented cancelling, and are still the undisputed masters of it. For every person you might name who has been “cancelled” by leftist voices, I can name you ten cancelled by the right, and not only that, I can double down and point out that virtually everyone you can name was not really cancelled—because they’re still making millions writing their books or making their films, and now they’re also cashing in on the right-wing talk circuit—while everyone I named was literally cancelled, as in had their careers destroyed and sometimes their lives absolutely ruined.
• It is also hilarious that the absolutely worst thing the right can say about the left is that they “cancel” people. Oh, boo hoo. Some millionaire celebrity is now only going to have to live off the millions they already made, because they can’t make any more. I weep and play the violin for them. Meanwhile, it would be lovely if the worst thing we could say about the right is that they merely “cancel” lefties they don’t like, rather than, say harassing them off the Internet with death and rape threats, or outright killing them. See, it’s kinda funny that you said that the left cancels by “literally eliminating” people… because they actually don’t “literally” eliminate anyone… but it gets a lot less funny when I remember all the times right-wing extremists have LITERALLY eliminated left-wing activists.
• The most important thing to remember, and the thing that always gets lost whenever I see right-wing media talking about someone who has been “cancelled” by “the Left” is why they were cancelled. When the right mobilizes to “cancel” someone—usually by death threats and harassment— it’s usually just because they’re a woman, or black (and usually because they’re a woman or black, and had the audacity to be in their favourite movie or game or whatever). But when the left does the cancelling, it’s almost always because the person did something actually horrific, like be racist or sexist or antisemitic, or they were abusive or got away with sexual assaults, or that kind of thing. And it’s almost always a pattern of behaviour, not a single incident. The usual right-wing sob story goes: “sweet and innocent person did a free speech, and then mean lefties cancelled them!” The truth always goes more like: “racist/sexist/antisemitic/whatever asshole did something shitty, leftie fans begged them to stop/apologize/do better/make amends, asshole refused and doubled down on the shittiness, so leftie fans finally got fed up and decided to stop supporting them.”
• And finally, the claim that the cancellation is “permanent” with “no chance of redemption” is just bullshit. It’s typical right-wing media hyperbole: they don’t deal in facts, they just want to rile you up, and in order to do that, they have to keep ratcheting up the outrage in the story. You can get by with “the left cancels people!!1!11!” for only so long before your audience becomes desensitized to it, so you have to amp up that anger again by adding “and there’s no chance of redemption”! But of course people who have been cancelled by the left get forgiven… if they give a good apology, show honest contrition, and take steps to show they’ve learned and grown. The example that pops into my head right now (because it’s fresh) is Dan Harmon. Harmon got #MeToo-ed for sleazing on and harassing Megan Ganz while they were making Community, and at first he tried apologizing to Ganz, but she wasn’t satisfied. So Harmon really worked hard to show he regretted what he’d done, and went public with a long, soul-searching apology on his own show, and eventually, even Ganz forgave him. And to this day, he’s a darling of the left. So much for “no chance of redemption”. Oh, sure, redemption isn’t easy, and most attempts by people who have been cancelled are transparently self-serving (and, a couple times, the asshole even came back and retracted the apology). But it can be done.

At this point though I don't care about the politics as much as I care about how people are going about defending their politics.

See, that’s your problem right there.

Being able to dismiss politics is a privilege that not everyone can afford. Someone who is poor and struggling absolutely cannot afford to just not give a fuck about politics, when the politics in power determine whether they get enough government support to not die of starvation outside in a gutter. Someone in dire need of health care cannot afford to not care about politics, when the politics in power will decide whether they get the care they need or whether they have to live in agony and hopefully mercifully not live too long that way. The same goes for people who are LGBTQ2S+ and live in fear of losing their job because the politics in power won’t require that there be protections against being fired for not being the sexuality the boss wants you to be. The same goes for people of colour who look on in dread as the President encourages white nationalists and race-war accelerationists and does nothing—or worse, increases funding—about police forces across the country killing people of colour at alarming rates.

I could go on and on and on. Families worried because they’re torn apart by racist immigration policies. People stuck in prisons because of drug enforcement policies. On and on and on. So you don’t have to care about politics? Lucky you. Not all of us are so privileged.

And to say that we shouldn’t care about what people’s politics are, that we should only care about “being civil” has to the most gob-smackingly stupid thing I’ve read all week.

There are not two equivalent sides here. This is not the fucking bread-and-butter war, or a dispute about which way to crack an egg. On one side there are white nationalists, boogaloo militants, antisemites (remember Charlotteville and “Jews will not replace us”), various and sundry bigots and conspiracy theorists, many of whom conspired to literally assassinate sitting politicians for having the audacity to respect democracy. On the other, people who “cancel” celebrities for being racist, sexist, antisemitic, or other nasty shit. On one side there are fascists, and on the other there are anti-fascists, and fuck anyone who actually bought the Fox News lie that there is an equivalence between them.

And to ask the victims of the white supremacists, the misogynist Christofascists, and the homophobic gun nuts to be civil… seriously, just fuck off, man.

But hey, you don’t need to care about politics? Gee, that’s nice for you. Oh, don’t mind me, I’m just being held back by airport security for being two shades browner than polite and having a funny accent, so I’ll be enjoying some enhanced interrogation for the next few hours as they probe my ass for jihad bombs while I try to explain to them that I’m not a Muslim not that that should matter anyway…

But yeah, politics doesn’t matter. {/sarcasm}

No, “balance” is not “key”. There is no middle ground between actual neo-Nazis, and people who oppose neo-Nazis. There is no middle ground between white supremacists, and people who oppose white supremacists. There is no “balance” between racists and racialized people.

As a general rule, when someone says they don’t care about politics, then either:

• they are ignorant of what politics is really about; or
• their politics are shitty, and they’re trying to hide them.

I care about politics. My skin colour and ethnicity mean that my life literally depends on it.

[Skynet]

Prominent Democrats continue to attend the National Prayer Breakfast even as its organizing group the Family uses it to network and support anti-LGBT groups both foreign and domestic.

A source close to The Family said that most members of Congress who lend their names to the breakfast have virtually nothing to do with it. "The Fellowship insiders that are … inviting people in the name of Congress … have very little to no connection to the [weekly congressional prayer] breakfast groups or Congress," the source said.

That account gibes with what two congressional spokespersons told TYT.

Asked about the 2016 breakfast, Kirkpatrick's chief of staff, Abigail O'Brien, said in a statement that "Rep. Kirkpatrick did not know the background information of the invitees. Had she [known] of anti-LGBTQ leaders being invited, she would have not allowed her name to be on the host committee." Neither Kirkpatrick nor her staff could remember the event, O'Brien said. 

Liz Odendahl, communications director for Hahn, who is now a Los Angeles County supervisor, called the host committee position "ceremonial" and said Hahn "was not at all involved in determining the guest list in 2016."

Two years before that, however, Hahn had served as co-chair. Even in that position, Odendahl said, Hahn "was not involved in determining the guest list." (That same year, Hahn walked out of the National Day of Prayer after Focus on the Family's James Dobson attacked then-President Barack Obama over his support for abortion rights.)

Together, the statements support longstanding accusations that the primary role congressional Democrats play in the breakfast is to help The Family create the impression that the event is both bipartisan and semi-official. The identities of the actual inviters, whose names are never publicly disclosed, tell another story.

This isn't the first time pro-LGBT groups have pointed this out:

https://tyt.com/stories/2E4lb3zIDV37rdUAwsh1zn/5rpYhMd0xZCD7HBI5DmW9E

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/big_tent/Gay-groups-chide-Obama-for-prayer-breakfast-ties.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04prayer.html

[rekhaiyer]

Had this forwarded to me in one of my friends group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw5CMUYIBAE

[Skynet]

The New York Times shown how a lot of liberal voters and politicians don't practice what they preach in a variety of economic issues, from housing to taxes to education.