Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

I get the impression this site is very left wing Watch

    Offline

    18
    (Original post by SamDrake)
    As the title says. I have a Theory as to why, it being a website for the millennial generation and as some of you may be aware, the millennial generation has been brainwashed by the liberal/leftist agenda since they were going to primary school. Hence why the younger generation think the way they do - liberal, overly compassionate to bad entities, no boarders, citizens of the world and terrified of offending anyone who isn't white.
    Don't be a numpty.
    It is as it always has been. The younger tend to be more lefty, the older tend to be more righty. Younger tend to be more progressive. Older tend to be more conservative.
    This has been the way of things since year 0.

    "If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head."
    (an oft used quote which broadly originates from mid 19th century France.)
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by viddy9)
    All of the moral and social progress that has occurred over the past few centuries didn't occur because we suddenly developed different emotions and moral intuitions. It occurred, as Steven Pinker comprehensively argues in The Better Angels of Our Nature, and as Peter Singer argues in The Expanding Circle, because we were able to use reason to come to the realization that superficial differences between sapient and sentient beings should not affect our level of consideration for them and their interests.
    The considerations themselves are illogical. What does it matter to the human race if animals die painfully or peacefully, as long as we can eat them?

    Why should people want their genes to survive, and if so why aren't these people entirely individualistic? Why should they care about the genes of people who exist within an arbitrarily defined geographical location (races are simply functions of geographic distance)? I don't see what's so special about culture either (again, the alt-right is surrendering to cultural relativism). If "my" culture doesn't equally consider the comparable interests of all sentient beings and give similar treatment when similar interests are at stake, I want to destroy my culture and replace it with something better.
    People of the same race share more of genes with each other, than people of other races.

    Some people care about the survival of their genes, because they think their genes are superior. Others, because they think its their duty, to keep their genes in circulation, to help natural/artificial selection take its course.

    If you don't care about the survival of your genes, what do you care about? Happiness? Freedom? Where's the logic behind that? Where's the logic behind humans wasting their own resources, in order to "consider the interests" of lesser beings?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I think you need to read more widely. The classical libertarians - Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Rocker, Godwin and so on - were libertarian socialists. Libertarianism is about dismantling structures of domination and hierarchy that limit individual freedom, which is why these classical libertarians were in favour of abolishing the state, capitalism as well as religion.
    An ideology that advocates dismantling the state and hierarchy doesn't sound very 'left-wing' to me at all, considering that left-wingers support big government and economic intervention.

    If libertarians support abolishing the state, how can there be any other economic systems other than capitalism? Every other economic system requires government regulation.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What threads have YOU ( OP ) been reading? This site is full of the young conservatives! I have read so many anti feminism, anti Islam, pro Brexit, anti foreigner, anti gay rights threads on this website! It's actually offensive a lot of the time. This website is not left like I expected in fact it's hard to find leftists. Half of the threads in news and current affairs are against the left. It's very tough for a feminist SNP supporter, there's just no point in commenting mostly which is probably what others like me do to be fair.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You know that experiment of mice killing themselves for pleasure rather than eating? Humans are no different. Thinking a world with no state works, is funnily enough just as much fairy tale believing as the right usually accuses "left hippies" to believe in.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    The considerations themselves are illogical. What does it matter to the human race if animals die painfully or peacefully, as long as we can eat them? If you don't care about the survival of your genes, what do you care about? Happiness? Freedom? Where's the logic behind that? Where's the logic behind humans wasting their own resources, in order to "consider the interests" of lesser beings?
    There's no justification for considering the interests of some beings, but not others. You can plead moral nihilism, but that's illogical, and at best gets you to a situation where you should not care about anyone's interests (not your own, not your "race's", not anyone's).

    Sorry for boring people with this argument, but I've yet to see a refutation of it.

    Your interests - for instance, the interest in not suffering - matter to you; at the very least, it's impossible not to try to pursue the satisfaction of your interests: if that is so, and given that there's no justification for putting your own interests above the interests of others, you ought to maximize the desire-satisfaction of every sentient being - to do otherwise would be to privilege your interests, for which there is no justification (unless you can give one).

    A rational being would ask: What is the real nature of the situation of myself among numerous others? Is it really rational for me to care more about what happens to me than to other people? Consider that each other person's wants are just as real to them - indeed, "just as real," period - as yours are to you. That you experience what happens to you differently than what happens to them is just a subjective illusion. Furthermore, your reference to yourself as "I" and to others as he or she is a grammatical illusion of relative application. There is not a difference in kind between an "I" versus a "he" or "she" like there is between circles and squares. A being who seeks objectivity must believe that the feelings of others as real and valid as her own, and that "There is no inherent specialness about 'my' feelings or desires."
    Would this abstract appreciation equate to a moral code? Yes, it must. A being who asks "what do I have reasons to do?" above all else would consider acting in accordance with its realization of the equivalence of selves to be the highest good, since it is phony to base conduct on a false premise.

    What do I care about? At the very least, as a result of this rational deliberation, I'd care about equally considering the interests of others and maximizing the desire-satisfaction of every sentient being. In the past couple of months, however, I've come to the conclusion (in line with the most important moral philosopher of the 20th and 21st Centuries, Derek Parfit) that there are irreducibly normative truths.

    As he argues in his three-volume work, On What Matters, just as there are logical and mathematical truths, there are moral truths. In my view, the intrinsic nature of pleasure gives us strong normative reasons to want to seek that pleasure, and the intrinsic nature of pain and agony gives us strong normative reasons to want to avoid these experiences. Given that these experiences occur in all sentient beings, it follows that I have reasons to maximize the happiness, and minimize the suffering, of every sentient being.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Some people care about the survival of their genes, because they think their genes are superior. Others, because they think its their duty, to keep their genes in circulation, to help natural/artificial selection take its course.
    Why are they superior?

    Helping natural selection take its course is a classic example of a fallacious appeal to nature. There's no reason to care about what's natural - what's natural doesn't equate to what is right.

    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    An ideology that advocates dismantling the state and hierarchy doesn't sound very 'left-wing' to me at all, considering that left-wingers support big government and economic intervention.
    That's just a circular argument. You've already decided that left-wing = big government and economic intervention (when that's simply not the definition), therefore of course it doesn't sound very left-wing to you. I'm just replying to you on factual and historical grounds, but you seem like the kind of person who is obsessed with labels. Don't focus on labels, focus on policies: if someone says something you agree with, but identifies as "left-wing", should you say "aha! See, you're really right-wing"? No, just acknowledge the common ground and talk about ways to implement that policy.

    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    If libertarians support abolishing the state, how can there be any other economic systems other than capitalism? Every other economic system requires government regulation.
    Libertarian socialism is an economic system: everybody freely associating with each other and working together for the common good, with no monetary reward or currency involved. If people don't like it, they can leave the commune. Read the authors I mentioned.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    They liked slavery. Slaves are private property you see. Liberal equality was often done through the prism of private property which as a socialist will tell you severely impacts actually getting to any meaningful notion of equality.
    I'm not too familiar with the pro- and anti-slavery movements, but I do know that classical liberals like Bentham and Mill were strongly opposed to slavery (although maybe this stemmed from their overall utilitarian philosophy as opposed to their liberalism, so you might be right).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)

    People of the same race share more of genes with each other, than people of other races.

    Some people care about the survival of their genes, because they think their genes are superior. Others, because they think its their duty, to keep their genes in circulation, to help natural/artificial selection take its course.

    If you don't care about the survival of your genes, what do you care about? Happiness? Freedom? Where's the logic behind that? Where's the logic behind humans wasting their own resources, in order to "consider the interests" of lesser beings?
    The human race is ultimately going to go extinct at some point. Happiness and freedom are just as logical as anything else. If I have a kid it is going to have my genes regardless of whether I kock up a white or Asian woman. I may even have a genetically stronger child with an asian woman... what with high variation being good for genetic health. In breeding is bad.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    How are the two things the same? Not running your life = not taking taxes?
    And a government that does neither, is not a government...
    The government has a legitimate role to play in society. But it doesn't involve 40% income tax rates and an enormous benefits infrastructure. The government is there to provide an army, a police force and a judiciary. It can do other stuff too, but the majority of government directives (sugar tax, cigarette restrictions, banning certain products from advertising) are attempts at making life choices on people's behalf by controlling what they can do with their money. I don't see that as a legitimate use of government power.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Don't focus on labels, focus on policies: if someone says something you agree with, but identifies as "left-wing", should you say "aha! See, you're really right-wing"? No, just acknowledge the common ground and talk about ways to implement that policy.
    Considering this entire thread is about what is classified as left-wing, the right thing to do is indeed to say 'Aha!'

    And even if it wasn't, saying 'Aha!' would still be the right thing to do. Saying 'Forget about the labels! Focus on this instead' is just a slimy way to get out of a losing argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    banning certain products from advertising) are attempts at making life choices on people's behalf by controlling what they can do with their money. I don't see that as a legitimate use of government power.
    How so?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Considering this entire thread is about what is classified as left-wing, the right thing to do is indeed to say 'Aha!'

    And even if it wasn't, saying 'Aha!' would still be the right thing to do. Saying 'Forget about the labels! Focus on this instead' is just a slimy way to get out of a losing argument.
    I'm just saying that you're the kind of person who would say "Aha!' regardless of the context.

    You've not replied to my points about the definition of left-wing, your circular argument and alternatives to capitalism in a stateless society. If you want to focus on the arguments, let's do so.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I'm just saying that you're the kind of person who would say "Aha!' regardless of the context.

    You've not replied to my points about the definition of left-wing, your circular argument and alternatives to capitalism in a stateless society. If you want to focus on the arguments, let's do so.
    One day I will be banned, and then I can know freedom from this place.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    How so?
    I smoke cigarettes. It's a bad life choice, and it knocks a week or so off my life per pack. But I do it anyway because I enjoy it. I accept, begrudgingly, the eye-watering taxes on tobacco products because I'm paying for my own healthcare in the event that my smoking causes health issues. That's fair enough - but the rest of cigarette regulation (banning minty filters, banning ten packs, banning branded packaging, banning advertising) is supposed to compel people into making certain life choices. It's reached a point where I almost smoke out of spite for the government.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    That's fair enough - but the rest of cigarette regulation (banning minty filters, banning ten packs, banning branded packaging, banning advertising) is supposed to compel people into making certain life choices. It's reached a point where I almost smoke out of spite for the government.
    Minty filters and ten packs sure but advertising? How does banning advertising compel people into making certain life choices? Adversing and branding must also compel people into making certain life choices?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    The government has a legitimate role to play in society. But it doesn't involve 40% income tax rates and an enormous benefits infrastructure. The government is there to provide an army, a police force and a judiciary. It can do other stuff too, but the majority of government directives (sugar tax, cigarette restrictions, banning certain products from advertising) are attempts at making life choices on people's behalf by controlling what they can do with their money. I don't see that as a legitimate use of government power.
    That is your personal opinion.

    While I agree in the UK the system is a bit much and lenient, I am all for altruism. Fact is that until we get robots to do it all, we will need humans to serve us our coffee, to clean our *****y toilets, to drive our buses, to do all these things that really don't pay much. We needs roads and schools and infrastructure, police. I am happy to pay taxes for that. There will always be people that are born well, stupid, or disabled or whatever, and what just because I got lucky and have a great job I should say "well that's life"? I would hope if I had been more unfortunate that I lived in a society that helped me.

    Saying that, as I said the system is not perfect and it shouldn't be that someone stays home on benefits rather than works, but in some cases that is also because it's pointless to work, you get barely more money in a **** job (if not even less, I don't know UK but in Germany that can certainly happen). So I just think we need to change the outside opportunities rather than cry "benefits are abused, get rid of them". I mean I for one think that we should force people to work. Clean graffitti, pick up gum or litter - before you sit in front of the TV getting benefits, you can easily do at least a little such as these things in order to give back society a bit. Same with prisoners, they cost a huge amount, I think one should find safe (in the sense that the work doesn't make escaping easier) of making them productive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamDrake)
    As the title says. I have a Theory as to why, it being a website for the millennial generation and as some of you may be aware, the millennial generation has been brainwashed by the liberal/leftist agenda since they were going to primary school. Hence why the younger generation think the way they do - liberal, overly compassionate to bad entities, no boarders, citizens of the world and terrified of offending anyone who isn't white.
    Cool story bro........why come here if you hate the vibe?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, I never noticed...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Young people on average supported thatcher back then.

    What do you all have to say to that?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.