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
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.
politics
@freemo As someone on the far-left, I don't know that I've ever really seen someone earnestly call for while genocide. I'm sure you can find people voicing those perspectives, say on social media, but I've never seen any left-wing person or platform that has actual influence/reach call for anything of that sort. If you look at the right though, there's actual mainstream rhetoric/policy positions that are very anti-minority, that encourage violence people of color, etc.
Oh also, Communism isn't 100% tax rate. It's a change in the organization of the way companies work. In theory, communists want democratic control and participation in the workplace. There are different communist ideologies and the people who adhere to them vehemently disagree about how communist society should be achieved/operate and kinda hate each other, but none of them would say that it's about taxation.
politics
Im aware of communism, and yes its more complicated than a 100% Tax rste. You need to make it more complicates for people to be fooled into thinking it coukd work.
As for being on the left and not seeing thr extremis. Sadly that is very common, it can be very hard for people to see their own sides extremism and very easy to see it on the otherside.
politics
@freemo I don't really think that "collective ownership and control" over work places is that complicated of an idea, if anything trying to claim it's about tax rate makes it more complicated. Also, as to whether it could work... we would disagree on that.
I guess it's fortunate that there are enlightened centrists who aren't blinded by ideology to give us all the TRUE perspective on things.
Also, the one thing you claim is that as many people on the left are calling for white genocide as minority genocide on the right which seems completely bonkers to me. The right is very racially white as a group while the left has other concerns than just racially inequality; like gender equality, lgbtq rights. A lot of women and queer people are white, so it feels like it would be very bad to try to genocide yourself/your supporters x3
politics
I do t recall saying the number of people calling for genocide on both sides specifically was identical.
Also we arent talking about centrists here being the ones with reasonable true perspective.. if anything we are implying left, moderate left, center left, and centrist are all more rational than extreme/alt left. Same for tbe right. I think that its fair to say ideologically nonextreme people are going to be more rational on almost any topic.
politics
@freemo "I've heard as many on the left call for white genocide as those on the right calling for minority genocide"
this is where i got the number of people thing from.
I wouldn't say it's fair, that seems like a status quo bias to me because the orientation of someone's ideology/beliefs is in relation to the society in which they live. For instance, an ideologically extreme person in a monarchy pushing for representative democracy would be seen as extreme by the average person in a monarchy, but we'd see them as reasonable because the value system/ideological framework that is the default in liberal democracies in 2023 is in opposition of monarchy.
Also, what does "rational" mean to you? The word doesn't mean much to me, it's just kind of a mapping between a value system and outcomes. If someone's left-wing they have a certain value system/desired outcomes and whether or not their behaviors/thoughts are rational would be to what extent they adhere to their value system or get them closer to their goals. Same with someone on the right even though what's rational would be very different for both of them.
politics
Perhaps you are a white person so they are less likely to say it arou d you than me. Whatever the reason my personal expiernces certainly have been about equal from both sides on this (talking in the streets not whatever view you get from the news.
Rational here tends to mean a push to objectivity, reason, and facts, as opposed to trying to twist to match your assumptions.
Yes I am talking about the US, but really any english speaking country at this point is on its way there.
So when I pointed out the extremism of the right, which you just confirmed, you find that intellectually dishonest? Weird, but ok. First time I heard someone say i was intellectually dishonest while in the same breath literally spewing "counter" points that agree with exactly what I was saying, that the right (and left) have been quite extreme lately. Or are you one of those people who cant help but hear someone defending one evil entity simply because they criticize some other evil entity?
@freemo @stux Seems I hit a nerve - your statement equated current extremism on the right - with the left. All domestic terrorism in the US for more the 20 years has been from the right. NO domestic terrorism from the left or anyone else. Per the FBI. There is no domestic terrorism (i.e., political violence) by the left in the US. So I think you've engaged in a false equivalency, which is intellectually dishonest. Just own it.
Taking something that represents 0.00001% of the problem (terrorism) and using it as a model to equate the whole problem... now that is intellectually dishonest!
@freemo @stux Political violence and threats from the right happens here every single day. The grand jurors in GA were doxed and are receiving death threats, the J6 committee members still receive death threats, 3 people were just shot in FL by a racist Nazi. Read the news, not propaganda, and it will open your eyes hopefully. You just don't like anyone calling you on your shit, apparently.
When you live in a country of 300 million people then saying it happens everyday is not a rebuttal to what I said. There are fringe cases of terrorism, no doubt. and im not debating if that leans right or left. But its such a small microscopic part of the overall extremism using it to represent the whole picture of the extreme is, as I said, intellectually dishonest.
@freemo @stux Sorry buddy, that is a weak response. You've lost the argument. My view is accurate is based on facts, which is intellectually honest. You can discount, minimize or whatever, but apparently you don't live here and you don't see it.
Your profile looks familiar - are you the guy who signed the NDA with Meta? I'm curious, though maybe that was someone else
> Sorry buddy, that is a weak response. You've lost the argument. My view is accurate is based on facts, which is intellectually honest.
Its not, and i pointed out precisely why its intellectually dishonest. Sadly more than facts are needed to make an argument, they also need to stand up to logical consistenty, which I pointed out why they didnt here (you are using something that happens at a very small fraction as a benchmark to judge eh whole of the extremities).
Also the fact thatyou care more about "winning" than seeking truth is very telling inteeed.
> but apparently you don't live here and you don't see it.
No I live here. Moved back about a few months ago. While I do try to stay out of the country a lot I grew up here and know the lay of the land quite well. I've had a house int he USA for 20 some years.
> Your profile looks familiar - are you the guy who signed the NDA with Meta? I'm curious, though maybe that was someone else
I did not. We are one of the oldest instances in the Fedi, and of course I was approached to sign the NDA, but I refused to do so.
Why is it the people who always lie to themselves the most always say this.
I havent asserted anything yet that needs backing up. Been dealing with your ego the whole time.
@freemo Oh I bet! But the amount and extremes are faaaaar less