#Political ideology

[taliabhattwrites]

While I'm still focusing on finishing my book and my essay series on understanding TERFs, I wrote a quick, bite-sized post on one of the most common gender-conservative temper-tantrums expressed as a pithy three-word shibboleth. We take a harsh look at the motivations and assumptions underlying this mindset, and what people really mean when they assert "sex is real" as an antagonistic principle to transsexual existence.

[hezigler]

The conscious rational mind is a secondary mental function. The mind chooses what feels right to it emotionally. Then, the rational mind takes over to --- well, rationalize the decision chosen by passion. This is why a good education should inculcate students with a passion for the Truth, along with critical thinking skills.

Life is complicated. So is finding the Truth in life. The Truth is often composed of many facts that are true. But taken individually, a fact may not on its own be indicative of the total Truth itself.

Full disclosure: Much as this posting may appear to be inviting dialog, it is not. Neither is it meant to be a declaration of my politics. My politics are too deeply rooted in my passion for Truth to be limited by ideology. That's not to say that all my posts are the product of reason in the search of Truth. Despite my advanced age and attendant health problems, I'm still in possession of a sense of humor. Both my health problems and my sense of humor have been greatly aided by being in my state's medical cannabis program. So, I'm very stoner friendly. I do occasionally free associate while writing, like I was noodling riffs on a horn. Like any honest writer may admit, I write to please myself.

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that intersectionality hurts or advances activism; for example let's say a climate change organization calling for a ceasefire?

Both.

In its positive aspects, intersectionality is grounded in reciprocal solidarity. It is an ideological and philosophical position that we are all connected and "no man is an island, entire of itself...Any man's death diminishes me/Because I am involved in mankind."

It is also a very pragmatic understanding that there aren't enough of us to win on our own. In addition to the concrete analysis of political struggle that we all share common enemies and have overlapping interests, the fractured nature of human society and identities means that coalition-building isn't a choice, it's a necessity.

In its negative aspects, intersectionality results in this weird, toxic narrowing of social movements to a point where only the most oppressed people possible are allowed to be in charge and make decisions and speak for the movement, and everyone else is a guilt-ridden privileged outsider who needs to shut the fuck up and lower their hands and listen and not make it about them - but only after they donate their time and money.

This is pretty much the opposite of what intersectionality was originally meant to convey: the whole point is that everyone exists in different positions on the various axes of oppression, discrimination, etc. (and these positions can change pretty damn quickly), and thus depending on the issue, certain people might have more of a lived experience and need to be listened to and have greater needs and need to have their agenda items prioritized, and who those people are going to be is fluid and dynamic rather than fixed.

And this brings us back to my earlier thing about reciprocal solidarity. I completely reject the notion that I exist within social movements solely as an ally to other people, because in truth I participate in these movements in no small part because I need help from other people on a whole host of issues. However, I remain in coalition when it comes to other issues (especially those in which my personal constellation of intersectionality puts me in a position of relative privilege), both out of a humanistic understanding that their lives and needs are equally important and out of that pragmatic understanding that if I help them on their stuff, they'll return the favor when it comes to my stuff. And over time, the experience of being in coalition will expand people's mindsets on issues that don't directly affect them and get them to act in solidarity more consistently.

And that's what I think is so good about social democracy and similar movements that have a comprehensive political "line" or policy agenda, because if we sit down and engage in good faith in democratic coalition-building negotiations where everyone understands what they are getting and what they are giving and that everyone gets a say but not an exclusive one, then we short-circuit this kind of toxic, self-destructive behavior and can move on to doing the work that needs to be done.

[queen-helmaroc]

SOLIDARITY IS HARD

But we have to do it anyway!! I'm specifically talking about small things here. Of course, if you have the means, please do everything you can to stand up in this political climate. However, small things like BOYCOTTS can make a difference if we ALL STAND TOGETHER.

Most people are not going to stop going to Starbucks, stop using Instagram, or delete X. But if we make it NORMAL, even TRENDY, to do these things, we can get more of the mainstream population in on this.

When you are surrounded by people who are not as politically charged, who don't want to inconvenience themselves in the name of solidarity, it can be hard to make these sacrifices. IT ALL STARTS WITH YOU!!! This is not going to be easy, and it is not meant to be easy. But we can live with small inconvenieces.

Our brothers and sisters in our countries and around the globe are suffering. We can go without fast food and social media sites that are contributing to their pain.

I'm planning on making a spreadsheet soon of people, places, things, etc. to boycott. If anyone has any resources or wants to help, let me know.

FUCK DONALD TRUMP <3

[ticklingtimetickstotest]

[erebusvincent]

Back in the summer, when plastic surgery was the topic of the day, there was this guy on Facebook who ranted about people who were critical of the industry. He claimed that everyone who stated that he or she was morally opposed to the cosmetic surgery industry and believed it was an inherently predatory industry that preyed on women, and that getting cosmetic surgery was not a healthy thing for women to do (my own positions in fact,) was lying.

He didn't offer any insights into why anyone would lie about common-sense and not unusual positions, but he was sure steamed that people out there in the universe dared to hold them. And the funniest thing about his tantrum, is that he accused those of us who are anti-cosmetic surgery of misogyny. He pretended he was the great defender of women, as he white-knighted for a profession that butchers them and tells them to come back for more.

Whatever the reason for his mental breakdown, it did make me consider something that I'm not sure I had ever thought about before. Liberals doubt your sincerity in a way that conservatives don't. It's liberals that don't believe you care about protecting children, fairness in women's sports, sexual violence, or the predations of the makeup, skincare, and cosmetic surgery industries (or even preferences in media consumption, as I recall.)

However, if you tell conservatives that you're a feminist and hold all of the same positions, they'll believe you. They will enthusiastically make fun of you, but they will not accuse you of being insincere in your deeply-held beliefs. It raises the question of whether this is because they are more sincere in their beliefs than liberals-that perhaps (definitely) the liberal obsession with ideological purity doesn't translate to the formation of a sincerely-held ideology.

I knew by the middle of June that Donald Trump was going to win the election, and these observations were a large part of that.

[usernamesarehard1]

"Harry Potter is Also Ableist"

[mcsquared789]

You know what?

This is probably the last time I will make/repost something related to US politics, but I want everyone to at least watch and share this video. A LOT of this is relevant to the outcome of the election, and why there seems to be so many people out there in your demographic that do not share your values. It was made 5 years ago, but I think it is going to be one of the most valuable resources that needs to be shared in the next few years.

You might as well subscribe to the rest of the channel too, it’s a little depressing but heavily important. It’s also important to distinguish — most conservatives are not active fascists, and they don’t want to be associated with them. You will know the difference if you ever see it for yourself, so give others some grace (while still staying true to who you are).

[thatsoheeron]

This is not very Christmassy and maybe a longshot but I've been very fortunate to have many kind and intelligent peoople as friends on here, does anyone have any resources on how to analyze argumentative statements? Specifically political/social/ideological ones. More specifically fascist arguments of the American (Trumpism) variety.

I'm thinking of making a segment where I highlight and break down rhetoric I come across online, and essentially teach the building blocks of critical thinking/analysis and making it free for the public.

If anyone has any resources on how to teach these tools or any advice on which direction I can head in that would be greatly appreciated!

Also happy holidays everyone!

[bizarreauhavre]

The leftist, (la gauchiste), experimental film, 2024.

[banjo15]

What I don’t like about political stances like left right socialism capitalism facism anarchism liberal conservative communism anarchy capitalism etc is that

They’re not “opposing ideas” who are meant to attack eachother

Sure, they aren’t compatable and wouldn’t work good together but

I don’t interpret them as “opposing ideas”, just ends of a stick. Life, death, can they co-exist? Yes. And I’m sure we can say the same for left and right media.

You can’t have life without death, after all. For example

Immortality, wouldn’t that be neat? Living forever, do whatever you want, No. you are forever but the world isn’t

And getting rid of all life? Not cool either. Everything is dead.

I don’t like far-left or far-right

I don’t like hard-anarchy or oppressive facism

I just want people to understand they’re still human if they disagree with you.

You can think abortion is bad, as long as you don’t force people to give birth

You can think abortion is a human right, as long as you don’t force someone to do it.

You can look at look at the past and think “that was pretty cool” as long as you acknowledge there were some very not cool parts of that era.

You can look back at humanity’s past in shame as long as you can identify that… we’re not much better

You can uphold personal freedoms as long as there is someone to hold you accountable for evil.

I support freedom, not evil.

You can desire a lawful and orderly society, as long as you don’t be a dictator.

This is why I condemn extremes in ideologies, you shouldn’t be far-left or far-right. You shouldn’t be a hard capitalist or a hard communist. You should do some self-reflecting, maybe consume media from both sides, don’t lock yourself in an echo-chaimber whether you be left or right. That’s what I see on tumblr, I see a lot of left-leaning media. That’s great, I’m all for lgbtq rights and female rights along with equality. But if you hate an ideology, learn about it. Interact with people from said ideology. Research it so you know what you’re fighting against. Even then, no one is perfect. Perfection isn’t real. It doesn’t exist. At least in humans, it doesn’t. Sure, some people say “that’s how it is” but that doesn’t mean that’s how it should be. Even then, when you look at bad thing and say “that’s bad” you still need to look at it logically. Don’t let your emotions control you, I’m not part of the “facts over feelings” crowd who just go off of their feelings. I’m telling you to trust those who have degrees, those who study your topics, those who are educated. But you should still critically think about things.

[omegaphilosophia]

Types of Conservatism

Conservatism, like liberalism, encompasses a broad range of ideologies and perspectives. These types vary significantly across regions and historical contexts but generally emphasize tradition, social order, and skepticism toward rapid change. Here are some primary types of conservatism:

1. Traditional Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Traditional conservatism values established customs, institutions, and social hierarchies. It stresses the importance of cultural continuity, the wisdom of past generations, and a gradual approach to social change.

Historical Figures: Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott.

Key Elements: Respect for tradition, social stability, authority, and moral order.

2. Social Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Social conservatism emphasizes the preservation of traditional family structures, religious values, and moral standards. It often involves resistance to cultural changes seen as undermining societal cohesion or moral integrity.

Key Elements: Pro-family policies, emphasis on moral education, opposition to liberal social policies, and preservation of traditional gender roles.

3. Fiscal Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Fiscal conservatism prioritizes limited government spending, low taxes, and free-market capitalism. Fiscal conservatives advocate for reducing the national debt, minimizing public welfare programs, and maintaining a balanced budget.

Key Elements: Limited government intervention in the economy, support for a free-market system, privatization, and reduction in government spending.

4. Libertarian Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Libertarian conservatism combines a conservative approach to social issues with a strong emphasis on individual freedom and minimal government interference in personal and economic affairs.

Historical Figures: Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul.

Key Elements: Individual freedom, limited government, economic libertarianism, and personal responsibility.

5. Neoconservatism

Core Beliefs: Neoconservatism originally emerged from liberal roots, focusing on an assertive foreign policy to promote democracy and defend national interests. It combines conservative domestic values with an interventionist foreign policy.

Historical Figures: Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz.

Key Elements: Promotion of democracy abroad, support for military strength, a strong national defense, and foreign policy interventionism.

6. Paleoconservatism

Core Beliefs: Paleoconservatism emphasizes nativism, cultural preservation, and limited international involvement. It is skeptical of globalization and often advocates for a return to traditional values, strong borders, and limited immigration.

Historical Figures: Patrick Buchanan, Russell Kirk.

Key Elements: Nationalism, cultural preservation, isolationism, and opposition to globalism.

7. Religious Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Religious conservatism focuses on integrating religious principles, often rooted in Christianity, into public policy and society. This type of conservatism seeks to uphold religiously based moral standards in areas such as marriage, education, and bioethics.

Key Elements: Influence of religious values on politics, pro-life policies, advocacy for prayer in schools, and opposition to secularism.

8. Cultural Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Cultural conservatism emphasizes the preservation of a shared national or cultural identity. It supports policies and values that maintain cultural heritage and resist influences that could dilute or change traditional norms and practices.

Key Elements: Cultural nationalism, preservation of heritage and customs, and resistance to multiculturalism.

9. National Conservatism

Core Beliefs: National conservatism focuses on the importance of national sovereignty, patriotism, and a strong, centralized state to protect national interests. It often advocates for immigration control and protectionist economic policies.

Key Elements: National sovereignty, patriotism, economic protectionism, and restrictions on immigration.

10. One-Nation Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Originating in Britain, one-nation conservatism advocates for a balance between free markets and social welfare policies, aiming to unite different social classes under a shared national identity. It emphasizes social cohesion, support for public institutions, and moderate reforms to reduce inequality.

Historical Figures: Benjamin Disraeli.

Key Elements: Social welfare, unity across classes, economic moderation, and gradual reform to prevent class divisions.

11. Green Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Green conservatism emphasizes environmental conservation and stewardship within a conservative framework. It advocates for protecting natural resources through personal responsibility, market solutions, and sometimes government regulations that align with conservative values.

Key Elements: Environmental conservation, sustainable development, market-based ecological solutions, and conservation ethics.

12. Populist Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Populist conservatism appeals to ordinary citizens, often positioning itself against elite or establishment institutions. It is skeptical of big government, promotes nationalism, and typically advocates for policies that reflect the interests of "the common people."

Key Elements: Anti-elitism, populist rhetoric, economic protectionism, and skepticism toward establishment institutions.

Each form of conservatism addresses different aspects of society, from fiscal and economic policies to cultural preservation, environmental issues, and religious values. While united by a preference for tradition, stability, and a cautious approach to change, these conservative strands reflect a diverse array of beliefs on the role of government, culture, and social structure.

[single-brain-celled-supervillain]

Saw a post that inspired this and I’m really bored at work so I’m doing this to pad out the time. Please reblog to get this spread.

Should probably specify that I mean stereotypical pirates such as Blackbeard and not modern internet or radio pirates

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that fascism arises from economic crises?

It's a bit more complicated than a unicausal explanation, but I would argue that they are a necessary but not sufficient factor.

There is an old phrase on the Left that "anti-semitism is the socialism of fools;" which sometimes results in a kind of vulgar Marxist variety of conspiracy theory in which all forms of hatred and bigotry are the result of malign forces in the ruling class trying to distract and divide and inclulcate false consciousness among the masses.

According to this train of thought, all forms of discrimination and oppression are the result of capitalism, and once the Revolution comes, then racism and sexism and homophobia, etc. will all come tumbling down and we will all live in unity and equality and harmony. I think this particular school of thought is badly misguided and has been responsible for quite a bit of the Left's historical weaknesses and blindspots.

However, I think there is something to the idea of the original saying, in that I think a lot of the impetus for reactionary movements comes from an inchoate feeling that something is wrong with society and culture, that is turned into not just incorrect but malicious explanations of what the problems are and what the causes of those problems are, in order to radicalize people into joining hateful movements. It's not that different from how ideological frameworks function normally in a Geertzian sense, just done for darker and more violent purposes.

Here's where I think the economy comes in. It is true that there are always going to be some people with extreme reactionary beliefs, but how welcoming society is to their recruitment and other activities does I think depend on how many people are feeling desperate and let down by traditional sources of authority and willing to give "alternative" voices a hearing. Often but not always, the state and direction of the economy has a lot to do with this feeling of desperation - it's not an accident that in recent decades, we've seen the flourishing of reactionary politics following major recessions or in places that have been on the economic decline.

Again, this isn't a 1:1 thing, nor are a lot of the converts among the poorest and most desperate in society, but I do think that general impressions about the state of the economy are a major component of the motivating sense of desperation, alienation, and a breakdown of trust in institutions.

[philosophicalconservatism]

Political and social ideologies do not deliver what they promise, but what they prioritize. In light of that reality, perhaps it can be said that the ideology of Socialism does indeed “work” after all.  What is Socialism's highest priority? It is not liberty, nor is it the best interest of “the working class”. The greatest priority of Socialism is the elimination of “inequality”, which actually means: the destruction of the wealth and productivity of the rich. Thus under Socialism everyone becomes equally poor. And the working class become much poorer than they had been, because the capital and productivity of the wealthy which lead to a higher compensation and quality of life is gone.

What wealth remains is controlled by the political leaders. But if that is the case, it would seem to some people that we had not eliminated inequality at all. Yet those people do not understand that the Socialist is only concerned about inequality amongst the common citizens. The political leaders don’t count. If they do count, then he must change his entire calculus for creating an equal society.  The state cannot hold all the cards.