Why Is There So Much Right-Wing Media?
🇳🇱
@stux Right-wing a few years back felt like it was dying off. Then left-wing went to super extremist mode and then the right-wing saw a resurgance in response.. now i cant tolerate either side anymore.
@freemo It's mostly 2 families who "control" or "invest" so much in it, it's kinda scary
@stux I mean thats true of left wing too.. a few super rich billionairs make up most of the lefts narrative just like on the right.
@freemo Oh I bet! But the amount and extremes are faaaaar less
Less extremes in what sense? Ideological?
@freemo Uh, noo not persee I think but the lies perhaps
Not sure if i say it right but the "depths" of the lies if you know what i mean
Far right is soo damn extreme, in many views like voilence etc
@stux In terms of lies I think there is some truth there. But I think it has less to do with them intentionally lying and more to do with the fact that the right tends to be less educated than the left, so I think that is more the higher idiocy levels with see more so than intentionally lying (plenty of that too but the intentional sort of lies Id say are equal to left and right).
As for the far rights extreme on my views... I mean yea I agree, but I see the same super extreme on the left. I've heard as many on the left call for white genocide as those on the right calling for minority genocide, for example (and for the record its a small minority on both sides in that regard). Or take taxes, I've heard views from the left that supports pure communism (100% tax rate) which matches the extreme nature of some of the most extreme on the right who call for no or nearly no taxes.
I know you're a committed "both sides do it" :) but I'm thinking of the MANY preachers and whatnot currently spreading the message that gay and trans people are mentally ill, are "groomers" and child abusers, and so on. I don't even know what a similar extreme on the left would be. "Gay people aren't mentally ill" just doesn't hit the same way. And "kids are in more danger from youth pastors than from drag queens " is just objectively true.
cc: @stux
Not every fucked up message has an inverted equally fucked up one on the other side. But for every fucked up thing you can find there is an equal measure of fucked up (though perhaps unrelated) stuff on the other side.
For example the most extreme left has the view of "We should take away hard earned pocessions of people, everyone, and give it away to all the people who didnt work for it" I mean the counter to communism of "You can keep the things you earned" just doesnt have the same kick to it either.
No, that's capitalism! :)
Communism is exactly that the workers should control the means of production, and the value that they produce with it. Capitalism is when the value goes to non-workers whose names are on the title-deeds to the buildings they work in, or equivalent.
We were talking about lies, though, at least originally, not about general fucked-up-ness. As well as lying about queer people, the right lies about for instance who won the Presidential election. Again I can't think of anything especially equivalent on the left.
As Colbert said, reality has a well known liberal bias!
Of course it is! Capitalism is when a worker produces $X of value, and that $X goes to the owner of the means of production that the worker used to produce the value; the owner then gives the worker a wage of some $Y << $X, and keeps the rest. (And mutatis mutandis for landlords, police, etc.)
I think what's happening here is that you're assuming that what's in the paycheck is what the worker "earned", and what's in the stock value is what the capitalist "earned", and what's in the rent check is what the landlord "earned", and it's only alterations to that distribution that counts as "taking" from someone.
But the taking occurred at the point that the value produced by the worker went to the owner instead.
It's all about how you analyze the economic dynamics. If you accept the assumptions of capitalism, then of course everyone gets what they "should". But the assumptions deserve to be questioned.
> Of course it is! Capitalism is when a worker produces $X of value, and that $X goes to the owner of the means of production that the worker used to produce the value; the owner then gives the worker a wage of some $Y << $X, and keeps the rest. (And mutatis mutandis for landlords, police, etc.)
But thats not accurate at all. In capitalism is where the owner lets the worker borrow their stuff to make stuff with, at a fixed agreement where both owner and worker get the cut they agreed to.
In communism the equipment is stolen from the person who worked to buy them.
I will only mildly suggest that you consider whether the worker and the owner really have equal power in the making of that agreement. And, for that matter, how the owner came to own the stuff in the first place. :)
But I was actually more interested in the stuff about the lies, given how utterly over-the-top the mainstream GOP even has been going. Is there an equivalent set of "barefaced lies about objective facts, told boldly from the podium (lectern)" on the left, that I'm not thinking of?
It's a relatively common principle in law that a contract is not valid if there is an overwhelming power discrepancy between the parties.
See also, for instance, company towns and the "voluntary" nature of the purchases that the employees make from their stores.
The idea that workers "voluntarily" enter into an agreement to use the means of production that "belong" to the owners, in exchange for giving up most of the value that they produce, is similar.
US law is the one that's easiest to find online :) but I think it's relatively widespread. And it's a general principle of justice as well: if one party to a contract has no real choice in the matter, then the contract isn't voluntarily entered into.
Some links that might be useful:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power
So this is different than what you said. Its not about if onenparty has overwhlmingly more power at all. You are talki g about signing under duress, which obviously doesnt apply to communism/capitalism as you dont even need to take the employment contract at all, you can start your own company or just contract for your employer as well.
Not according to every us court every, or for that matter any other court.
They are hugely different things. The fact that you can compete fornhire with multiple other employers or even work for yourself and do the same work as a contractor means you arent under duress and have many choices.
I tend to disagree; the fact that 1% of the people in the world control half the wealth seems unjust to me, and it's certainly due to the world's economic structures and institutions. If you think it's just fine and just, that's up to you of course!
The unjust distribution across races is, as you say, also unjust, and also due to (among other things) those same structures and institutions.
> I tend to disagree; the fact that 1% of the people in the world control half the wealth seems unjust to me, and it's certainly due to the world's economic structures and institutions.
People being able to keep what they earn and work hard and take the risks on is not unjust.
If i am the only one int he village spending all my time chopping wood and therefore have much more wealth than everyone else its kinda childish and silly for allt he villagers to complain and demand some free wood. go chop your own.
The majority of rich people in the USA started out poor or middle class, there is injustice, but not in the ways you imagine.
We are clearly on different sides of the Just World question. I do not think that the 1% of the people who control half the world's wealth do so because they "worked hard", and "took the risks".
(Especially given that the ultra-rich tend to be clustered in families, and just given common sense about inheritance works.)
I'd also like to see a citation on "The majority of rich people in the USA started out poor or middle class", although that statistic all by itself wouldn't mean that the current distribution is fair.
I see, for instance: https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/personal-finance/articles/study-shows-only-27-of-wealthy-americans-are-self-made/
To use an artificial example, even if the multi-billionaires held a lottery annually, and made a few people millionaires to keep the rest of us quiet, that would not make the system fair.
"there is injustice, but not in the ways you imagine": where do you think the injustice is?
@ceoln @stux
There are plenty of unjuat aspects. But having ubeven wealth distribution is not caused by injustice if we are talming rich vs poor ratio. There is unjustice when we talk about distribution between some demographics like race.