.
While I appreciate and align with aspects of the above, the essential point of my earlier comment (that you quoted) is that -- as I articulated in a subsequent reply to Jack -- attempting to distill talking points into currently-framed definitions of "left" or "right" is inherently foolish and counter-productive.
Part of the reason the "Liberals/leftists in America" thread was started was to call out the hypocrisy and extensive goalpost-shifting that has occurred among a subset of those that identify as "liberal" or "leftist". The same applies to those on the "right" in America, of course, but since 2020 the cognitive dissonance and contradictions, broadly, on the part of many of those identifying as 'liberal'/'left' has been more blatant (and practically satirical if not tragic).
That said, in this era one of the prominent aims appear to be to create divisions within factions, and then again creating further divisions within the resulting sub-factions (etc); we're observing this phenomenon across most if not all tribalist affiliations many Americans may align with ("Left, "Right", etc.).
The efforts to generate ever-more discord, division and confusion among citizens of a given country seem to have been expedited/pushed into overdrive mode.
(As one current example, it's been interesting to observe the extent many of those that opposed covid-related fascist policies are now rigorously calling for the censorship/suppression of the right to protest blatant acts of genocide perpetrated by the Israeli govt. Of course, many of those against the actions of the Isreali govt are otherwise perfectly ok with U.S. govt support in the Ukraine. Round and round we go. Hypocrisies abound.)
That said, I take issue with a couple snippets of text; first:
...2) more concern for one's self at the expense of concern for others...
This is an increasingly dangerous position to hold, and frankly it's increasingly foolish to hold such a position without qualifiers in our post-2020 world.
The following positions are absolutely NOT "libertarian" positions (though certainly libertarians -- among many other types of political adherents -- may well subscribe to one or more of the following); to the contrary, the following are positions that should or could rightly be held by any 'collectivist'
(at least they would be, if not for all the conditioning, priming, nudging and related propaganda techniques employed increasingly aggressively across populations to distort views on how 'collectivists' could think -- and the way 'collectivists' in this current era largely think, apparently, is largely in alignment with dominant status quo, pharma conglomerates, etc.):- Rebuking outright ALL mandates AND Lockdowns as egregious affronts to fundamental human rights & ethics (not to mention the harms caused to humans collectively and the fact they are not based on sound science); this includes, of course, mask mandates;
- Rebuking the non-science notion that a personal medical choice made by a given human has any impact whatsoever on another human. This DANGEROUS fallacy directly contributed to
brazen otherizing, segregation, and blatant discrimination. This is the antihesis of a collectivist mindset, and yet most that fully subscribed and clamored for such policies -- such as 'vaccine passes', etc. -- considered themselves "collectivists"/"liberals";
- Rebuking this false notion that a social credit system and/or 'central bank digital currency' would benefit the majority when it's far more likely to lead to further restrictions, controls, and subjugation of populations (as already demonstrated in at least 1 or more cities in China);
- Rebuking this false notion that austerity measures of any kind to combat "climate change", or worse, "climate alarm", is in any way beneficial to the majority. This is yet another Trojan Horse/Bait & Switch tactic, all to the detriment of the majority, as are most if not all of the other points raised above.
- 'Trans Rights': 'Trans Women are Women' and related rhetoric has led to blatant misogyny and intrusion of MEN into spaces reserved for women. Not to mention the vile promotion of mutilation and harmful medications on children/teens as part of an ideological push to normalize non-science rhetoric (among other ulterior agendas). See the Trans thread for more details on this topic. Clearly there is a need for acceptance and understanding of humans with differing views of their identities/sexuality, but as we've seen with just about all topics of import in this era, this topic has been
overtly co-opted by bad actors with malevolent intentions.
- Etc. (other examples can be provided)
Much more can be said about this -- and much has already been typed about these topics across myriad threads, but in the interest of time I'll simply quote a snippet from stickdog, which covers much of it:
stickdog99 » Mon Apr 01, 2024 5:25 pm wrote:...If we can't get well-meaning collectivists to own up to being marks for our con artist establishment on something as comparatively trivial as the COVID pandemic, is there any hope for awakening them to the perils of what ascetic rituals and deprivations will next be required of them to remain virtuous in the already proceeding "War on Existential Climate Change"?
Lastly, this tendency among certain groups of individuals to freely disparage
'middle aged white men'.It would be interesting to see any 'polls' or data that demonstrate this claimed 'prominence' of 'libertarian views' among
middle-aged white males (as if this fact alone is a "bad" thing -- if any other race/persuasion was broadly associated with a specific mindset in similar fashion it'd surely be labeled racist). In any event, such data -- if even available -- may well be subject to bias, confounders, and other forms of statistical magic tricks, if even available other than as a trope/overly-broad generalization.
Speaking only from my perspective: as a 1st generation American (English was the 3rd language I learned in my household, after I started grade school) raised in a solidly middle-class town in Queens NY (perhaps the most socio-economically and ethnically diverse region in the world) with parents from South America and Europe, I can say without reservation that many of the individuals I encountered online and/or in the real world that broadly rebuked many of the above points I raised above come from many diverse backgrounds: they come from multiple races and creeds, multiple age groups, various income ranges and political affiliations. I travel quite a bit, both for work-related reasons and for personal reasons. This broad range of backgrounds is something I observed across many different places in the U.S.
(less so in "blue" urban areas, however).In short: things are not as they may be presented within certain curated echo chambers.
(Needless to type, OF COURSE there are groups of individuals that have demonstrably libertarian views, and in certain regions/locales a solid contingent may well be 'white' and male -- among other races or sex -- with self-serving interests. But it's patently incorrect to attempt to insinuate that any of the positions bulleted above are "libertarian" views, exclusively)
I don't consider ANY of the points/examples raised above to be "libertarian". To the contrary, each point speaks to a deep interest in human rights and ethics, as well as the ability for each human to operate with a reasonable and expected measure of agency. There is absolutely no reason to view this in a negative light when assessed soberly.
An EDIT with a caveat that a fair amount of the above is not, necessarily, a direct reply to Liminal's post, but rather an amalgamation/composite of generalized sentiment among a broad demographic with presuppositions of [currently prevailing] 'collectivist' mindsets.
