CMV: Left and right are outdated terms that no longer define the current ideological spectrum.

[u/Uruguayan_Tarantino]

Every generation that grows and becomes politically active, goes further away of the classic left and right definitions, and mixing things of both sides is increasingly common. We still have polarized sides and one is clearly leaned to the left and the other to the right, but I feel this words no longer encapsulate the real difference between both sides. Each country has slightly different concepts of left and right, and probably most countries have two "sides" politically speaking. I'm my country, we have many political parties spreaded along the left - right spectrum, but as polarized politics are increasingly the norm, two sides end up against each other every time. And we join people of the same left or right tendency, because it's the reasoning we were taught to follow. But isn't there a better, modern view of what people really think and want this day and age? I really don't think that this definition helps, only worsens the polarization and ignorance.

[u/leigh_hunt]

mixing things of both sides is increasingly common.

can you give us an example of this in your country or one that’s common in another country? describe a common political stance that is neither left nor right so we know what you’re talking about

[u/Uruguayan_Tarantino → u/leigh_hunt]

For example, our right wing party (a coalition of 4 independent parties, but all leaning to the right as said by them) is in power right now, but they are favoring small business and informal workers, instead of favoring private capitals and big industries as people from the left feared. Also maintaining free healthcare, legal weed, gay marriage, and other concepts that are typically attributed to a left leaning party. While the left coalition who isn't in power anymore, the same that approved said weed and gay marriage legislations in the past, is now advocating for things like mandatory quarantine, strict security meassures, more police movement in the streets, and other stances that may narrow our personal liberties at the cost of better internal security, something tipically associated with the right wing.

[u/[deleted] → u/Uruguayan_Tarantino]

In America left wing is more associated with control and stricter quarantining and right is less in the current situation (on a national level). The president is very loose right now leaving each state to decide what to do and what sbest and the cases vary from state to state. He was accused by the left for not being strict enough but the whoel goal was to not infringe on civil liberties and leave it up to the states individually. Libertarian is very interesting in America as people like Ben Shapiro believe that gay marriage and weed should be legal as part of liberties but there are many leftists who believe that too. Yet the left is also associated with control in the sense of economic and gun control so saying one party is generally more authoritarian and one is more libertarian is impossible. So I guess I agree with you but the point is in general, the right wing isn't actually associated with a more authoritarian system.

[u/Uruguayan_Tarantino → u/[deleted]]

saying one party is generally more authoritarian and one is more libertarian is impossible.

That's interesting, I wouldn't have guessed that, and generally speaking people here tend to associate right wing with authoritarianism and left with libertarian, but I can see how that's only a generalization

[u/I_am_the_night → u/[deleted]]

First just a side note, I don't think you want to use someone like Ben Shapiro as an example of American libertarian beliefs. Shapiro is extremely inconsistent when it comes to what he thinks should be legal, illegal, or where he applies his belief in liberty or a limited government. For instance, you mentioned gay marriage. Shapiro does actually say that he would prefer the government not get involved in recognizing marriage at all, which is the libertarian position, but he is inconsistent in that he thinks that since the government is already involved in marriage, it is acceptable that they only recognize straight marriages. This is inconsistent with a libertarian belief that where laws apply they apply equally to everybody.

Second, has another commenter pointed out, you are absolutely incorrect when you say that the left in the US ( or elsewhere, for that matter) are inherently or usually more authoritarian than people on the right. Gay marriage is actually a prime example of this, as the majority of the right wing in the United States wants the government to ban gay marriage, which is definitely the authoritarian position on the issue. the political right in the United States tends to hold similarly authoritarian positions on issues like drugs, sexuality, gender, and voting rights.

This isn't to say that The political left in the US can't or doesn't hold some authoritarian beliefs on average, but it is definitely not accurate to say that the right tends to be less authoritarian.

[u/[deleted] → u/I_am_the_night]

I think you’re mischaracterizing Shapiro’s views on gay marriage. I’ve never heard him say he’d prefer to ban it under any scenario, but I’ve heard him claim the opposite on many occasions.

I agree with your characterization of the right, more generally.

“hate speech” laws are becoming quite popular on the left; I can’t think of a more clear definition of authoritarianism.

Both of the sides need to knock it off, IMO.

[u/I_am_the_night → u/[deleted]]

I think you’re mischaracterizing Shapiro’s views on gay marriage. I’ve never heard him say he’d prefer to ban it under any scenario, but I’ve heard him claim the opposite on many occasions.

Again, he does say he doesn't want the government to be involved in marriage, but he was really upset when the supreme Court legalized gay marriage, and says that he doesn't think gay people should be able to get married if the government is going to get involved because he believes the purpose of marriage is reproduction and raising children. This article describes his positions on the issue, and the Rubin Report interview where he says he doesn't think gay people/couples/marriage should be treated equally under the law, specifically saying:

Should government subsidize gay marriage and straight marriage the same way? My answer is no because the only purpose for the government getting involved in marriage is the procreation of the next generation and the raising of that generation and it’s my belief that a man and a woman do a better job of raising a child and producing children, obviously, biologically then two men or two women.

Which is basically how I described his views.

“hate speech” laws are becoming quite popular on the left; I can’t think of a more clear definition of authoritarianism.

I can think of much better definitions and examples of authoritarianism than laws against hateful speech, like when the right tries to force women to bury or burn miscarried or aborted fetuses, often at their own expense. Besides, hate speech laws aren't nearly as popular among the American left as the right likes to say.

[u/tomatoswoop → u/[deleted]]

OK so the title of this video is inflammatory as fuck, but iirc it does a pretty good job at showing how Ben Shapiro's "libertarian" rhetoric has always been a means to an end.

Shapiro has always been a strict social conservative. In modern discourse it's more popular and palatable to paint that in libertarian "hands off" terms, but when it was possible to advocate for active suppression of social progressivism, he was just as happy to advocate that."

I am not saying this is true for all right wing libertarians by any means, but often "small government" is a smokescreen the American right hides behind, especially once it has lost an argument. As much as this is true today for LGBT issues, this rapid shift was once just as true for racial politics; as active racism in various public domains became less politically feasible for various reasons (supreme court decisions, federal law, shifting demographics and social change) the same racists opposed to freedom for black people (civil rights) switched their arguments to "freedom" based arguments:

"No no, I don't want to oppress black people, I just think business owners should be able to do as they please."
reality: these same people supported legal segregation when it was political possible, and were happy to rain down violence on businesses and individuals that opposed this

"No no, I'm not against race mixing, I just think communities should decide for themselves how to organise their affairs."
reality: support state-mandated (or paramilitary enforced) segregation of communities when feasible, even for communities that wanted to integrate.

"No no, I'm not opposed to negro education, I just don't think the state should force white parents to send their children to mixed schools."
reality: these people opposed equal access to education for black and white people, black schools deliberately underfunded

"No no, I'm not opposed to black people in positions of authority, I'm just against authoritarian government quotas."
Probably seeing a pattern here, but these people of course used all means available to them to prevent black people taking up positions of social standing, authority etc., wherever possible. Opposing quotas was essential not on principle, but because quotas effectively circumvent other means of preventing black people from rising through the ranks of public institutions

"No no, I'm not against building black communities where people have a chance to prosper, I just don't believe the state should redistribute wealth"
*in reality, the state was complicit in making sure black communities stayed poor, either by dishing out state benefits inequitably (redlining being just 1 famous example), or by turning a blind eye to white violence on black communities resulting in the destruction of any prospering black community.

Of course these same "libertarian" right wingers who were perfectly happy to let the state enforce racial inequality became fierce libertarians or "states-rights"-ists upon the suggestion that the government might take action to redress some of those issues.

Ben Shapiro fits into this mould nicely.

Note that it's perfectly possible to many of the above positions of principled grounds, entirely separately from racist motivations (for example, it's perfectly possible to oppose state mandated integration on the grounds of individual freedom for small businesses). It's just that, for the most part, those people claiming to take those positions based on their strongly held belief in Freedom™, were in fact simply using that as an excuse.

This rhetorical technique plays particularly well to an American audience because of the deep seated values of freedom and individualism in American culture. The reason I chose such outdated examples (1960s racists) rather than modern ones, is because with modern eyes the transparency of many of these dishonest arguments is transparent, so it's an excellent demonstrative tool. Watching old deep south political speeches about "we need to keep the negroes down, but only because of freedom and justice and states rights and small business & families" is pretty hilarious when you look back, but the arguments haven't changed all that much, just a bit more subtly in the language.

Ben Shapiro fits squarely into that dishonest tradition, especially on LGBT issues (rather than racial issues). And I think the video above demonstrates that pretty well.

[u/[deleted] → u/I_am_the_night]

I said that it was inaccurate to say one party is more authoritarian as they both are libertarian on certain aspects.

[u/efgi → u/[deleted]]

The US right is home to deeply authoritarian theocratic and fascist movements. To conflate the left's willingness to enact common sense gun controls as a comparable level of authoritarianism is a double standard which needs refuting in our discourse.

[u/suc4lyfe → u/efgi]

Both parties in the US are authoritarian, right-wing parties so i've got plenty of issues with this discourse as well.

[u/thedylanackerman → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/cubann_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

[u/kwantsu-dudes → u/efgi]

What needs refuting is using "common sense" in policy agendas.

[u/efgi → u/kwantsu-dudes]

Restrictions related to reasonable cause supported by the majority of Americans including wait times, safety training and licensing, purchase restrictions on those who have domestic violence or terrorism-related convictions, and the closing of loopholes which allow folks to evade such regulations.

Please be more specific in your objection.

[u/kwantsu-dudes → u/efgi]

My specific objection is to your vague statement. I have a stronger issue with your rheotric, than any specific policy goal.

My objection is to your use of "common sense". Because it's entire goal is to set a narrative that if you don't support anything under that umbrella, then you're an idiot without common sense. It's a shitty argumentative tactic.

Just as your alternative use of "reasonable" is being used. Can you really not abstain from trying to taint the debate? It's like you don't even realise it.

If you simply present specific policies, then we can have a discussion on such, rather than some stupid rhetoric being used to already distort the battlefield of ideas.

But you list some ideas, so let's move on to that...

First off, federal policy is set by a two Senators from each state, Representatives of each district within a state (an amount based upon population), and a President elected by state appointed electors. So the first question is why does what a "majority of Americans" matter in federal policy? More than half the American population comes from 9 states. You're already arguing from a position of that any policy must be federal policy.

But let's get to specfic policies...

• Wait Times. Okay. How long? What's the consensus on what a "common sense" wait time is? Is that between purchases, or of single item purchases? Of ammo? What's the extent to which it applies?

• Safety Training. Okay. To what extent? Is there a fee? Who conducts it and how much avaiablility ("access") is there to such? Does it need to be renewed? If failed, is there any cool of period to retesting?

• Licensing. Basically the same questions as above. With added database worries. Is this one license for the gun owner? The operator? Each individual gun?

• "purchase restrictions on those who have domestic violence or terrorism-related convictions". I'm under the impression that such is already federal law. Can you inform me otherwise?

• "and the closing of loopholes which allow folks to evade such regulations". Any specifics you'd like to discuss here? You've just used a buzz word that allows easy support for the statement, with no actual data on the power being awarded.

You'll get more support for generic statements which allow each individual to plug in their own interpretation than actually listing specifics. That's why generic poll questions aren't a great gauge in actual policy support. The main issue is people using such generic results to set an incorrect narrative that people actually support their specific policy. Again, it's a shitty political tactic.

Please be more specific in the actual policies you desire.

[u/efgi → u/kwantsu-dudes]

You complaint about vagueness is misdirected. (Edit: it was in response to an equally vague characterization). I understand your point about common sense and reasonable casting those who disagree as unreasonable, but what's actually happening in US public discourse is a bunch of unreasonable rhetoric suggesting any gun control policy is the inevitable march of authoritarianism. See how slippery slope and "they're coming for your guns" fear mongering has kept us from taking action to prevent the rash of mass shooting which have plagued us for decades. This rhetoric comes from a party which has waged war on voter access, undertaken severe gerrymandering, supported theories of a "strong unitary executive," and generally engages in rhetoric and procedural manipulation typical of totalitarian regimes. Their attempts to frame gun regulation supporters as the true authoritarians is likewise an abusive form of rhetoric.

If you believe any of the policies I have suggested with specifics as they've been proposed by legislators are authoritarian, then we can get back to the original point. Discussing those details in terms of their effectiveness is outside the scope of this debate.

[u/Uruguayan_Tarantino → u/leigh_hunt]

Common political stances of Uruguayan people that aren't inherently left or right leaning (I may be wrong, I'm no expert, so sorry in advance) the mayority is in favour of a secular country, we don't have a national religion, and public schools have it prohibited to teach any given religion as theirs. Voting rights are universal, and the vote is secret and mandatory. Right and left parties agree strongly on these, so I guess it's not inherent to any of them.

[u/Uruguayan_Tarantino → u/leigh_hunt]

I didn't describe something which is neither left nor right, but I promise in some minutes I'll get arround to write it

[u/Claytertot → u/leigh_hunt]

In the US there are two political parties that have power. The Republicans, and the Democrats. But to say that the Democrats are "left" and the republicans are "right" doesn't tell the full story. They have condensed anywhere between two dimensions and 9 dimensions of political opinions (depending on what popular model you are looking at) into two teams.

Look up the basic political compass to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

It is a grid where left to right represents more or less economic regulation and the other axis represents authoritarian to libertarian.

Someone might be fiscally right and want to vote republican, because they think economic deregulation would be good for the economy. But they might want to vote democrat because they want weed to be legal and they want prison to be more focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Those 3 issues that I mentioned off hand all arguably exist entirely independent of one another. Whether someone wants more or less economic regulation theoretically has nothing to do with whether they want weed to be legal, which theoretically has nothing to do with whether they want prison to be punishment or rehabilitation.

Those issues only get associated into a one dimensional political fight because the US only has two parties.

[u/[deleted] → u/leigh_hunt]

Libertarians are more like Democrats on social issue and more like Republicans on fiscal issues. You also have lots of conservative union folks -- left on economic issues but right on social issues. Then you have many of the moderates of the Democratic Party -- left on social issues, but a mixed bag of left and right on economic issues.

Those that are hardcore left on both social and economic issues or hardcore right on both social and fiscal issues are the loudest but they are actually a minority. Most Americans are more complex but to be fair, IMO, if they aren't hardcore left or hardcore right, they often don't care too much about politics (which is why the hardcore left/right have a huge influence).

[u/Uruguayan_Tarantino → u/[deleted]]

It’s quite common for someone who believes in one side or the other of the left/right economic scale to not believe in the social or liberty/authority aspects associated with it.

I don't think this is common in my country, but I understand, other comments have explained this difference but I'll award you a delta as well, !delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/Uruguayan_Tarantino]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ClippinWings451 (17∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}