When I go hiking… I am going through certain mental forms of anguish as well as worrying about my water, the heat of the sun, and the fear of dying alone. of like a heart attack. because sometimes I really push myself. On this journey every once in a while I see a comrade and they’re either moving past me at a higher rate or moving away because they’ve already reached their goal. Yet at the end of the day, it is just the time in which it takes me to get to my destination. But yet eventually we all reach the end of the trail. We observed different things and we value different things. We should talk about that.
Simpsons did it!
Futurama is just a slightly different Simpsons!
We are enemies now
I was going to comment that OPs meme sums up db0 really well, but this one does that even better.
You can’t tell me how to anarchy bro
One thing the right is good at doing is falling in line, no matter that the agenda being pushed.
That’s mostly due to the rights belief in hierarchy. It doesn’t matter if the person above you has different views than you if you believe their right simply because they’re higher up the pecking order.
One thing I’ve always wondered, who/what decides their hierarchy?
Thry guy who finds himself on top determines the hierarchy until someone supplants him ny whatever means.
Money
God
(Aka their pastor)
Oh deer
Yeah the flaws of leftists is understanding what they are voting for and not operating purely on loyalty.
This seems like sarcasm, which is valid, but what you said is also absolutely true. The primary virtue of the left is also its biggest weakness when it comes to implementation.
When the system is broken, that is indeed a flaw
Gotta maintain that rigid tribal culture so it supports whoever steals the leadership role!
Heh, don’t let that fool you, they still infight like crazy despite that. Examples include the hilarious collapse of the NJP, the assassination of Rockwell (leader of the American Nazi Party) and labeling every existing neo-Nazi group “feds” because they’re inevitably embarrassing and scandal-filled.
The right has their fair share of infighting. They may all want heirarchy, but they disagree on who should be on top. They can all agree on scapegoating an outgroup, but disagree on which people fall into that outgroup. Like, the ultimate endgame of fascism is for the last fascist to kill the second to last fascist for not being white enough.
They appear to be united because most of us don’t go into their spaces and lurk, because, I mean, ew. If a Trump supporter came to Lemmy, they’d find people quite united against them, and if one of us went on Truth Social, we’d find them quite united against us, but that doesn’t mean they actually get along internally.
Honestly I’m fairly certain they infight even harder than the left does. They just wouldn’t self-critically admit to it like we would. Cause they don’t self-crit.
The right opposes free thought and favors conformity to support the privileged few.
The left favors free thought and opposes conformity, because that would impede social progress.
Yeah, I wonder why one of those groups is likely to have public arguments.
Not necessarily. Some leftists demand conformity in beliefs. “If you don’t believe XYZ, you’re a shill/neoliberal/fascist etc.”
I feel like favoring free thought and opposing conformity leads to arguments, but demanding conformity leads to enemies (like this meme).
Some of the most authoritarian people I come into contact with on any kind of regular basis are “leftists” on Lemmy.
The ones in real life are not like that. I feel like Reddit’s moderation model really encourages it, and some of them started really taking it to heart when they came to Lemmy which copied that same model.
If the believe is that we should send more bombs, maybe it’s not about comformity but more about your own morality
The problem is not public arguments, but groups rejecting other groups for ideological reasons. I personally know people who are like “you can be a communist, or you can be wrong”.
The reality is that there are left groups, especially far-left groups, who will already dismiss your opinion on everything for not categorically rejecting a (social) markets economy. Doesn’t matter if you agree in all other points.
A fundamental disagreement on a foundational principle is going to be a hurdle, indeed.
That reminds me of a scene from Jean-Luc Godard’s La Chinoise, where some members of a Maoist group call others “conformists” or something to that effect because they hold different views on the finer details of communism/socialism.
The right is also driven by fear and hate. It’s easier to get coordination and conformity that way.
It’s a different version of the tolerance paradox
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. (Source Wikipedia)
tale as old as time
I didn’t see this film until the 2010s, and I couldn’t believe how accurately it lampooned my local scene.
err, what movie is it? Yes, I live in a cave.
Monty Python - Life of Brian
Not sure, but I think maybe Life of Brian?
God the assassination scene, so accurate.
I don’t hate most leftists (or even non-leftists for that matter). I hate the kind that hate other leftists. The lemmy.ml tankies always complain that people who disagree with them are splitting the left, when they’re the ones calling everybody who vaguely disagrees with them a liberal. Not purely an ML thing though, there’s plenty of this kind of person in all camps.
I think lacking self awareness is a requirement to be a tankie
People who vaguely disagree with them about sending more bombs.
The von der leyen kind of leftism ahahahahahah
But after they called me a liberal for supporting Ukraine, they said they respect anarchists. They must be our friends! /s
Sucks that the system in the USA is broken but until it’s fixed and we have more than two parties, democrats are the left.
It’s better not to equate the two parties of the USA to the parties in a parliamentary system it’s a different beast.
The Democrats are the coalition of the left of center interest groups of the current time, and Republicans the coalition of the right of center interest groups of the current time.
These groups are more the parties of the parliamentary system and run candidates in the primaries of their respective parties, and possibly as independent from time to time (particularly when they feel a bit pushed out of the main parties). Also they push these candidates at all levels (local, state, congress ect)
I would love some sort of rank choice/instant runoff ballots to make more choices easier in the voting lineup, however those who are pushing for third parties without trying to run local politicians or promoting policies ect will likely not succeed in that system either.
So it’s accurate but they’re both wrong because
-
He is the left.
-
He shouldn’t even be trying to converse with literal USSR advocates and literal anarchists as if they were part of his base.
-
You voted for a genocider and you think TanKiEs blindly support russia because you’re a jingoist and think peace voices are really modern-day KGB agent. Guess what, you can criticize the NATO without sucking putin’s dick.
In fact the putin regime have been put there by the US
Political LeftRightism (n.)
Definition:
Political LeftRightism is a spatially encoded meta-framework of political orientation that frames ideological discourse along a singular, bipolar axis, left versus right,thereby reducing the full multidimensional landscape of political thought into a linear spectrum. As a memetic penetrator and perceptual instrument, LeftRightism functions not as a neutral map but as a meta-weapon of the ruling class: a cognitive architecture designed to channel dissent, structure debate, and neutralize system-level critique by confining political possibility to a predefined, adversarial dialectic within the system’s own terms.
Operational Mechanisms:
Perceptual Confinement: Constructs a false totality of ideological space by placing all positions, grievances, and aspirations on a left-to-right continuum. This flattens pluralistic thought into a binary schema and frames radical alternatives as fringe “extremes.”
Cognitive False Equivalence: Establishes symmetry between left and right regardless of historical asymmetry in power, violence, or systemic entrenchment. This symmetry encourages the illusion of balance where structural inequality remains.
Controlled Opposition: Absorbs political resistance into legible categories that the system has already immunized against. By permitting debate only between “acceptable” sides of the spectrum, it constrains opposition into predictable, ineffectual loops.
Ideological Compartmentalization: Prevents synthesis of cross-axis or off-spectrum worldviews (e.g., spiritual leftism, post-capitalist traditionalism, decentralized communitarianism) by declaring them incoherent or invisible.
Map-as-Reality Substitution: Through repetition and institutional embedding, LeftRightism replaces the messy, evolving reality of political life with a static cartographic abstraction, inducing conceptual dependency on the spectrum itself.
As Meta-Weapon: Political LeftRightism operates as an epistemic instrument of enclosure, a framework-level tool of hegemony rather than a position within debate. It disguises its own structural function beneath the appearance of neutrality and exhaustiveness. By scripting political meaning into a legible diagram, it enables elites to:
Predict, manage, and diffuse unrest;
Legitimize centrism as “reasonable” and extremes as dangerous;
Fragment class solidarity into partisan identities;
Avoid exposure of vertical dynamics (top vs. bottom, ruler vs. ruled) by focusing attention horizontally.
Distinction: Unlike left- or right-wing ideologies, which offer substantive (if partial) theories of value or structure, LeftRightism is not an ideology per se but a cartographic control mechanism—an ideological exoskeleton that shapes and constrains all ideologies that operate within it. Its power lies not in its content, but in its pre-conscious adoption as the default schema of political orientation.
If partisan identities are different enough that they don’t ally then that means their differences are too great.
The “leftrigthism framework” itself could be obscuring the possibilities for alliance
I’m not interested in trying to meet in the middle with people who are happy keeping our systems of slavery in place.
Any time I have seen people attempt to change the perspective in which we look at politics (ie. The Political Compass) it is always just an avenue for right wing extremists to be validated. The Political Compass helped cause the rise of authoritarianism we see today.
Maybe if your ideology is only appealing under a certain light then it isn’t an appealing ideology.
Yes I agree the political compass as a political framework pushes assumptions embedded in it’s structure that reify power itself.
The political compass and “leftrightism” are the same kind of political meta-weapons. Structure that anchor a political understanding and prepare the terrain to amplify those forms of power that understand the world through an austere and reductive model.
This disempowers exactly the kind of people most vulnerable to the concentrations of power that the framework seeks to highlight but because tge framework is so reductive it weakens its users by obscuring political reality.
We need better ways to understand political realities of the world to counter them with the sufficient and required nuance.
Yugopnik made a good point on the term “Leftist” and how its so broad that it includes many different idealogies that are quite honestly conflicting, i.e. stalinists, anarchists, etc., so that it appears leftists are always fighting since they are all lumped into the same category.
I approve of any leftist as long as they are anti-authoritarian.
so that it appears leftists are always fighting since they are all lumped into the same category.
I always say it is because the left in general has its roots in old school liberal value of “think for yourself”. So there typically tends to be maverick attitude and in-fighting. The best example is the Spanish Republicans during the Spanish Civil War; you have soc dems, communists and anarchists fighting together not just against fascists, but also themselves. The right, meanwhile value order and hierarchy, so they tend to easily set aside their differences. Again, the Spanish Civil War is the best example, with the Spanish Nationalists also composed of various factions with competing agenda, but managed to set aside their differences, which made it easier to do because they had a strong man figure to rally to.
And the right won that war, which goes to show the value of unity
And the right won that war
I assume you are from the US. It may be the case in your country, but it is not necessarily that the right as a whole won the war, considering that other parts of the world still have leftist and liberal politicians ruling. As a matter of fact, they have gotten more popular as Trump’s brazen corruption and incompetence is setting example why not to elect populist right wing politicians.
For what it’s worth, if nothing existentially happens that would stop US from becoming a nation anymore like a civil war, politics typically swing back like a pendulum. Even at the extreme, politics could dramatically swing back to normalcy and empathy. We have had countries that were under dictatorship, but are now democratic like Spain and Portugal. Because the problem with dictatorships is that they become too corrupt and reality eventually catches up to those who were swooned by initial sweet promises of demagoguery.
Of course, what I just said now may not be reassuring to you because I am speaking from a place of relative safety, so you can take it or leave it.
I am American, but I was more making a point about how the rights tendency to fall in line makes them more effective, and maybe we should emulate that
Yeah sometimes I get frustrated because I wish “the left” could be adults for five minutes and deal with the issues at hand. Like I don’t care about the socialist alphabet soup if you’re from PSL, or DSA, or ISA or whatever, we all agree that people are being kidnapped by I.C.E. is evil and alarming, can we just deal with this right now? We can get back to bickering about philosophy later.
But even that is complicated since there are disagreements that can’t be ignored, like whether to work with democrats, who time and time again undermine and cripple movements whenever able and divert them for fundraising.
For me, it makes much more sense to think about it all as pop culture. I’ll use America but this goes for any country.
The right leaning party represents pop culture. A dominant culture. The popular culture is American Apple pie and blue jeans with letter jackets.
The left represents everything outside the pop culture bubble. It’s a larger population as a whole, but they’re like little bubbles they all contain their own culture. Those cultures can conflict or merge and compliment each other. But they’re individually separate.
The pop culture is always feeling threatened. It needs to maintain the status quo. Every outside sub culture is trying to fight their way into the dominant culture.
So this is why the right leaning voters trend towards rejecting things like immigrants, minorities, LGQTB and often other sub groups that are not wildly accepted by the pop culture. This is also why the left leaning groups do not. They trend towards infighting about how to do things but overall they all focus efforts on taking status away from the pop culture.
When I view politics as a clash between pop culture and sub cultures, it makes so much of it make so much more sense.
Which is also why I believe this is useful because it highlights how to win. Pop culture is much more sensitive to culture jamming. If anyone remembers ‘yes men save the world’ they were buried a bit, but they managed to fuck with so many things in pretty smart ways. You can really start to see how to focus efforts on them with this context I think at least.
To me it sounds like you’re starting to broach on the concept of reactionary vs dialectical analysis
I’m not sure what that means. I’m interested though. Is it something you can explain here or is there some topics you can’t suggest I read up on
Its a bit of a complex topic, but in basic terms reactionary thinking is kneejerk reaction, what “feels right” without broader analysis. The popular surface level, like how people complain about trans people in sports cause it “feels unfair”, but when you look at the actual numbers there such a small section of out trans people in general, and even then they do pretty regular on average. Or how you here how believe all women will somehow make it “dangerous” for men dating, when in reality false accusations form less than one percent of cases, but one in four women experience assault. Whereas dialectical thinking is the thought that larger processes and symptoms influence outcomes, and one should take a step back and analyse the context and direct facts about something through critical thinking before coming to a conclusion. Like how study after study have proven that the number one factor contributing to a person engaging in violent crime is poverty, not just a person being born bad. Or how despite the narrative, immigrants commit crime at a lower percentage on average than natural born citizens. But since dialecticalism is a much bigger analysis and uses a fair amount of hypothetical and philosophical thinking you end up getting a fair amount of groups believing that their hypothetical analysis is best, such as you get with different philosophers.
Look what they did to my boi.
I have never met a leftist I didn’t like
but I only consider somebody a leftist if they respect human rights.
I’m always under the assumption that everyone can be an asshole. I had a very good friend qnd we’re both vegans. To me it’s just a dietary choice that i made, for her it was almost like a religion. Like when she met someone who was also a vegan or saw someone on tv that was a vegan, she always assumed that it’s a good person, or just rooted for that person, no questions asked.
Unfortunately all the wanna-be Pol Pots out there also consider themselves to be leftists.
Political ideology is a spectrum, and I feel that Leftists tend to be as hostile towards those they deem ‘not as left’ as them, just as much as they are towards Fascists, Neo-Cons and their ilk.
It’s basically the no true Scotsman fallacy manifest.
I’ll start my own leftism, with Blackjack and hookers! If fact, forget the blackjack. Ah, screw the whole thing.
this whole platform be like:
I was recently banned for being “transphobic” for telling people what far right people believe about trans people, in the third person because I’m not far right nor have I ever been.
I’ve been pro-trans rights (AKA human rights) since I knew what the word “transgender” meant, which is going on twenty years or so now?
Lemmy has a REALLY bad problem with people who dont actually read comments and process them. They skim read the post, see a few keywords and then argue the point that they want to argue regardless of what the original comment was.
But… That’s like 80% of the internet.
Ive noticed it a lot more on here.
Like there was a thread about real world uses for “A.I” and I said that its perfect for traffic management which triggered someone who went on a huge rant about carcentric cities and how we need to have more public transport and cars arent the answer. Like ok, I dont disagree but thats not really related to the question at all.
Yes, people got too used to the early days when the majority of reddit was still on reddit. Now that it’s turning more completely into front page 2.0, it’s pretty noticeable
I was actually back and forth a bit with an admin among other folks, likely the one who nuked the thread and banned me.
Nobody was being rude, and the last thing I said was agreeing with them.
I’m banned from like 6 blahaj zone communities for one comment I made where me and two other users discussed the overlap of trans and gay.
This one was a lemmy.world, specifically 196.
Same mods I think.
Ah okay. I get why Lemmy hides moderator actions, because some weirdos out there will harass and stalk a moderator IRL for banning them for spewing slurs everywhere and trying to post CSAM, but on the flip side it irritates me that I can’t avoid whatever communities that moderator who banned me moderates.
Even with zero chip on my shoulder about the ban, it’s clear that we don’t have anywhere near the same definition of “transphobic” and I’d like to save us both the time of butting heads about it. Win win, if I can proactively avoid participating in a community they preside over.
Lemmy doesn’t hide moderator actions. The modlog is completely public by default, an instance admin can change that but doing so is not normal.
It says “moderator” banned me.
I made this for a comment (about small-data images, jpegs) days ago:
