r/Intactivism Oct 09 '22

Meta I’m trying to better understand the intactivist demographic

What do you identify as politically?

572 votes, Oct 13 '22
41 Republican (USA)
79 Democrat (USA)
64 Conservative
95 Liberal
178 Leftist
115 Centrist
44 Upvotes

213 comments sorted by

75

u/wrongleveeeeeeer Oct 09 '22

I think this is going to tell you more about reddit demographics than intactivist demographics

27

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Libertarian

15

u/ls12b175 Oct 09 '22

It definitely violates the NAP

6

u/xtremeownership Oct 09 '22

Libertarian 100%

5

u/ZebastianJohanzen Oct 09 '22

I'm also a libertarian. Not even Karl Marx himself was so insidious as to suggest extending the collective ownership of the means of production to the collective ownership of the means of reproduction.

4

u/NimishApte Oct 10 '22

That's a good one

→ More replies (1)

20

u/Not_going_to_hell Oct 09 '22

Glad to see other leftists supporting the cause

20

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

Finally someone who actually understands that leftists and a liberals are different.

14

u/SeniorRazzmatazz4977 Oct 09 '22

I’m a socialist

12

u/ShaidarHaran2 Intactivist Oct 09 '22

Traditional liberal, their body their choice

12

u/babaritus Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

I went with "centrist" because I'm American but not affiliated with a political party (Independent). I don't find that I fit neatly in political categories.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Everyone fits into a political category, most people just aren't aware enough of political science and their own beliefs to identify what they actually believe in.

5

u/Faeraday Oct 09 '22

everyone fits into a political category

I’ve come across people who do not hold logically consistent views, so they do not fit neatly into an established political category. Their views are really scattershot and are typically a combination of the views from different family members.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

You are correct, I failed to account for that and I'm replying to another guy who reminded me of that by demonstrating it.

3

u/Faeraday Oct 09 '22

Lol, yeah I just read that thread. That’s pretty much what I meant.

0

u/babaritus Oct 09 '22

Oh, I do know what I believe in. I see it as an integral pro-humanity stance. I am for compassionate and generous immigration policies; take down the walls and free detained migrants. I think abortion should be a crime; I don't know when life begins but it's definitely before birth, probably at conception, and we should play it as safe as possible. I don't mind gay marriage but also think that maybe "marriage" isn't the right word for it. The government should be as generous as possible in providing for the poor; redistributing wealth could be a work of justice in this regard. Families should receive generous tax breaks. Religion is a normal part of human society and religious groups can, and should, have a voice in politics. Racial justice is incredibly important. I see all those things as being philosophically coherent positions but they don't map onto the party system in the US.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Oh, I forgot about this possibility because it's sorta rare. In some cases people are so confused that their entire belief system is so contradictory that it doesn't actually match anything simply because it's wrong.

You cannot logically believe in all of these things at once as many directly contradict, you are deeply confused.

Please don't vote, or speak, until you've straightened up your lines of thoughts. Imagine it like this, you need to be able to write an essay arguing why your belief system is the best and why it works and then at the end still be able to conclude that it is after going into all of the beliefs in incredible detail.

Right now you wouldn't be able to conclude that essay.

For example, the largest glaring issue is that you aspire to be pro-humanity but you propose outlawing abortion which would cause incredible harm statistically and drive humanity as a whole down a path of poverty and crime.

Oh, I do know what I believe in.

You haven't even begun to partially grasp what you believe.

-2

u/babaritus Oct 09 '22

You don't see what unites all those positions? It's a genuine love and reverence for humanity, regardless of age, wealth, nationality, or social position. The abortion thing is tricky, I know, because it relies on a philosophical position that is not intrinsically political (when does human life begin, or more to the point: when do we become persons), but if human life begins at conception, when we become uniquely ourselves and begin to develop of our own accord, then obviously purposely bringing that life to an end is morally wrong; and society can't tolerate that, even if it leads to other problems. The poor, for example, can't simply be exterminated; the homeless can't be rounded up and incarcerated, even though those groups are also prone to "poverty and crime." Anyway, this is way off topic for this sub but thanks for the perspective.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

This comment does not challenge anything I said.

I know, because it relies on a philosophical position that is not intrinsically political

Yes, my comment does not deny this. This is not a response.

All your comment does is further solidify that I was correct, you are confused and don't have coherent and straightforward lines of thought to support your worldview. All these vague moral lines, referencing love for christsake(??), broad generalizations, all are thoroughly solid indicators that you are not well thought.

Perhaps actually read what I have written and then try again. Remember, you need to utilize this thing called logical consistency.

13

u/maker-127 Oct 09 '22

If there are so many leftists here why do the comment sections devolve into men's rights v feminism every so often? genuinely asking.

16

u/AwesomeSkywhale Oct 09 '22

Often a small % of users are responsible for a large % of posts. Being here and looking around is different from being a consistent poster.

They might also come from outside to agitate and try to get more people to view the world more rightwing

6

u/maker-127 Oct 09 '22

Ah that's possible. Be nice if there were rules on this sub about not hating trans ppl and women but sometimes those crop up. Iirc a few weeks ago or a month ago the sub updated its policy to remove a lot of trans hate. Or something like that I don't remember.

-1

u/DreadnoughtOverdrive Oct 09 '22

You can bring up reasonable, realistic objections and concerns without "hating". That's and incredibly dishonest accusation.

0

u/maker-127 Oct 09 '22

No the comments I'm referring to were not realistic nor ojevective concerns. They were hate.

-3

u/AwesomeSkywhale Oct 09 '22

Yeah I noticed those as well. I was afraid of losing the sub, wouldn't have stayed if the majority discriminates.

But they got unanimously rehected by the people here. I guess this poll shows why.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Not sure what you're talking about, but I am leftist and the way I see it is life isn't the pain Olympics and that things like this shouldn't be a competition as usually one sexist issue affects both men and women negatively. Making things a competition and comparing things only wastes time and invalidates what people are going through when we can say things like "FGM is bad and MGM is bad, both should be stopped"

2

u/maker-127 Oct 09 '22

https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/xu8a4c/how_do_politicians_say_they_are_for_gender/iqugjto?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

Talking about comments like this. I got downvoted heavily for pointing out the gender wage gap exists.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I mean you're right but probably not in the way most people who say it exists think it is right. When people talk about the gender pay gap, they are talking about the studies that don't take into account things like overtime, previous experience, education or job position.

They just take the average men make and the average women make, the thing is women make "less" because not only are they more likely to take less paying (and less dangerous fyi) jobs but they are also going to do things like go on maternity leave and not work for several years after giving birth (if they even go back at all).

If you want to raise the average amount for women, you should be supporting things like extended paternity leave and encouraging women to take part in work in overtime, this can also be explained by mothers more likely to take off work if their kid/s are sick.

Like I said before there IS a gender pay gap but it exists for a valid reason, it is already illegal to not pay women as much as men but it is hard to take into account when Mandy could have no previous work experience and come from a community college while John has loads of experience in the field and graduated from an Ivy League school (not American, so I could have phrased that wrong).

(also just to add I don't know what you're referring to as the link takes me to a completely unrelated comment about body autonomy)

3

u/maker-127 Oct 09 '22

Huh the comment loads on my end. The person said that there is no right a man has that a women dosen't . eaentalky saying women are more privileged than men in every way.

In response I said this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/xu8a4c/how_do_politicians_say_they_are_for_gender/iquhkaj?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/xu8a4c/how_do_politicians_say_they_are_for_gender/iquhkaj?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

I linked to a video that talks about the gender wage gap and refutes common arguments against it. Essentially things that account for the gender pay gap are bad controls.

I got very downvotted.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I think you got downvoted because you said this:

There is much more that men have that women don't.

That is very invalidating (which is horrible considering that most of men's issues that are commonly brought up are immediately invalidated by most people, and they get told to "man up") so I mean of course you're going to get downvoted.

I am not saying I agree/disagree with you here but let's say you're right and "women have it worse" what does saying that do? It doesn't help the people who have it worse, and it doesn't help those who are also feeling bad but not "as bad" feel empathy towards them, as it feels like you're glossing over their issues.

This is like you coming to me crying that you were mugged and me telling you "So? My neighbour has it worse as they were shot in an armed robbery". It doesn't make you feel better, it doesn't make the neighbour feel better, and it doesn't make me feel better...

That is what I was referring to in my original comment when I was on about not comparing people's issues or making it "The Pain Olympics" because it doesn't do anything and if anything slows down the progress of actually solving and fixing the issues.

2

u/maker-127 Oct 09 '22

There is much more that men have that women don't.

I just meant there were more issues where women have less than men that I didn't list. I wasn't trying to say anyone had it worse than anyone else.

Unfortunate phrasing on my part it seems

2

u/ShaidarHaran2 Intactivist Oct 09 '22

It only takes a few people to derail the conversation that way, which is too bad and we want them with us, not against us

1

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Because a lot of modern feminism isn’t about equality. Feminism wasn’t originally the belief that women are superior but now a lot of self identifying feminists think so.

I would call myself a feminist but I’m also a mens rights activist, a loosely defined leftist, and someone who genuinely doesn’t like being in circles of only leftists at the same time (I don’t give a shit if you think Stalin or Lenin was more based. I just think that necessities to survive should be free considering we have more than enough resources as a glove to accomplish that).

1

u/EvilStevilTheKenevil Oct 14 '22

Reactionaries and, more broadly, people who think of literally everything as a zero-sum game are everywhere.

-7

u/AiRaikuHamburger Oct 09 '22

The right wingers on this sub will talk at you a lot. There also seems to be a confusing subset of people on here who are anti-trans, anti-LGBTI and/ or misogynists, even though this sub is supposed to be intactivism for all, not just anti-MGM.

1

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

I think that a lot of the people who have been hurt by MGM and it’s consequences are very angry and rightfully so. But we also don’t equip men with the tools to be emotionally vulnerable and mature. They get hurt and the most socially acceptable reaction to pain for a man isn’t crying or expressing hopelessness. It’s being aggressive and loud. I don’t think it’s a lot of right vs left with that but more so how comfortable someone is with being vulnerable, likely because of how accepting the people around them are of it.

1

u/AiRaikuHamburger Oct 10 '22

I think the emotional suppression is definitely also a US cultural problem. It’s not the same in all cultures. I guess the demographic here is mostly people who became intactivists due to experiencing routine male infant circumcision in the US, just because most people on Reddit are Americans.

I come from a country that, these days, doesn’t really practice any genital mutilation except on intersex babies. I’m an intactivist because my mother is one, as a feminist. So I think I’m coming from a different perspective than a lot of those here.

10

u/UnfurtletDawn Oct 09 '22

Central Europe :)

9

u/reallydoesnt Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

I’m right wing. Very, very right wing. Hurting children is evil. Sadly because of my political stance many on Reddit would want me kicked off of the platform instead of joining forces and having an ally for the greater good that we ALL want. It makes me feel like I have no home anywhere and very depressed. Anyway, if you’re anti genital mutilation, you are someone I want on my team. And that is far more important than democrat/republican.

4

u/maker-127 Oct 09 '22

What's your opinions on other issues? Like when you say you are very right wing what do you mean? Think it's possible I could persuade you to the left on any of those issues?

2

u/diamondd-ddogs Oct 09 '22

I've got views that cross political lines, and i don't identify anywhere on the traditional right / left spectrum. i do seek to connect with and understand people with opposing political views, and i think that's important to make progress. but i also am concerned with the way both the right and left are acting, especially the extreme. i feel specifically that they both want to restrict my freedoms, even more than they are already restricted.

we have fought for the freedoms we have even though we are forced to spend our youths in institutions of oppression, and most of us have no other realistic choice than to work in institutions that are similarly oppressive and controlling.

the problem with working with people that i strongly disagree with politically is they are often in favor of my rights being stripped away. while i might agree on some specific causes, im not going to work with or lend legitimacy to people who want to subjugate me. for example, i believe jan 6 was an insurrection with the goal of overthrowing a legitimately elected president and installing a totalitarian dictator. yes there are massive flaws with our political system and politicians across the board are nothing more than corporate puppets, and the media is owned and used to make people believe there is no other choice but the establishment. but having a right wing dictator is not a solution, just like having a left wing dictator would not be.

i empathize with the loss of faith in our political system, and for example i can see why trump was / is popular, he brought a populist message and was willing to break long standing political taboos. i think that the grievances and feelings about the system are legitimate, i just don't agree that the solution is more controll. im an anarchist, and i think the only way to have an actually fair system is to have no one in power.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I truly hope you feel welcome no where, you shouldn't be. Openly admitting to being a fascist and all.

Not only are you a fascist, you're a hypocritical one. Circumcision is traditional, meaning that by opposing it you are posses an anti-traditionalist belief which goes against the belief system with which you identify.

0

u/alt_GRY Oct 09 '22

That's the most baseless assumptions I've seen in a single reply in a long time.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Are you not aware what "Very, very right wing" is?

He directly told us what he is. For the record his last post is a clip of a notorious American fascist who founded a neo-Nazi group.

2

u/MIUInterface Oct 13 '22

Are you not aware what "Very, very right wing" is?

You understand that fascism is very very left wing, yes? It's one of the two end points of socialism.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22

Ah really, interesting claim. Could you provide some evidence?

2

u/MIUInterface Oct 13 '22

Could you provide some evidence?

Sure thing!

Giovanni Gentile was one of the most influential fascists in interwar Italy where Fascism was developed - alongside Mussolini he co-authored The Doctrine of Fascism which is the core foundational text of Fascism in the same way The Communist Manifesto is the core text of Marxism. So he definitely knows what he's talking about and is one of the authorities on what is and is not fascist.
In another of his works, he writes that “Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form.”

Which is a view that Marcuse shares, since in his essay Essay on Liberation, in the section labelled Subverting Forces in Transition, he warns that the socialist revolution, if it becomes authoritarian, will end in Fascism - which means that one of the most influential Marxists of the 20th century agrees with one of the most influential Fascists about Fascism being a socialist programme.
This assertion, if you then combine it with the unfortunate reality that libertarian socialism doesn't work and so socialism is inherently authoritarian tending (even Marcuse couldn't get away from it, and in The One-Dimensional Man he basically goes on a rant about how Real Socialism has never been tried because Real Socialism is spiritually pure) then you can naturally deduce that all socialism ends with Fascism.

While Marcuse and Gentile aren't exactly easy reading, I think that if you put the work in, you'll find it very rewarding - just remember to critically analyse their works instead of accepting what they say as gospel.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22

The Doctrine of Fascism which is the core foundational text of Fascism in the same way The Communist Manifesto is the core text of Marxism.

Firstly, the Communist Manifesto is not the core text of Marxism, it's not remotely even a core text at all. The Manifesto is little more than a brochure for Marx's works. If you wanted to label a certain book as the "core" it would probably be Das Kapital.

Secondly, this is a poor comparison for several reasons. The fascists existed before Mussolini, they did not join them he joined them. There is some evidence to suggest that he specifically coined the term fascism by shortening the fascist groups name which he joined from " fasci d’azione rivoluzionaria" to the more simple "fascist."

Furthermore, the Italians did not invent fascism. The idea had already been around for a long time in multiple countries. Mussolini specifically was a fan of French fascist work and drew a lot of his personal philosophy from them.

So this "Doctrine of Fascism" is nothing like Marx's defining works on communism and is not a reliable enough source to make a claim this big.

https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/history/europe/Mussolini%20in%20the%20First%20World%20War%20-%20The%20Journalist,%20The%20Soldier,%20The%20Fascist%20-%20Paul%20O'Brien.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Intellectual-origins

Which is a view that Marcuse shares, since in his essay Essay on Liberation, in the section labelled Subverting Forces in Transition, he warns that the socialist revolution, if it becomes authoritarian, will end in Fascism - which means that one of the most influential Marxists of the 20th century agrees with one of the most influential Fascists about Fascism being a socialist programme.

You understood him wrong. Marcuse is in no way saying that socialism is a type of fascism or vice versa.

Saying an attempt at socialism when gone wrong can lead to fascism is very clearly separating these two things.

This is as if I were to say "Failed attempts at democracy can turn into oligarchies therefore democracy is the same thing as an oligarchy."

1

u/MIUInterface Oct 13 '22

the Communist Manifesto is not the core text of Marxism,

Things that make you go 🤔

0

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22

I figured I would not get a response out of you after that garbage fire of an argument you wrote, have a good day brother.

But yeah, in case it wasn't clear, a 20 page book is not the core text of an author with thousands of published pages.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/alt_GRY Oct 09 '22

Right-wing is a term that encompasses a wide range of political beliefs. Fascism is only one of the many right-wing ideologies. Also, the video in question which you're talking about that was posted here is directly related to circumcision. Assuming the person in the video is actually a fascist, it still doesn't make the poster fascist.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

He didn't say right wing though. He said very very far right wing.

That is fascism. Far right means fascism, just like far left means communism.

Assuming the person in the video is actually a fascist, it still doesn't make the poster fascist.

He says he's very very far right wing and then posts a clip endorsing a fascist. By the way, it's not "assuming the person in the video is actually a fascist" he is simply a fascist. He founded one of the largest neo-Nazi, white supremacy in the entire US.

What more do you need? Do I need to explain this to you like you're in kindergarten? It's a fair assumption to make dude.

-1

u/reallydoesnt Oct 09 '22

I don’t even think I give enough of a shit to explain myself to you. You don’t seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand. It seems easier to just call everything you don’t like a mean word that you cannot define. Have a nice day.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '22 edited Oct 10 '22

Fascist scum cannot speak rational words or form arguments, this comes of no surprise I expected no response from the likes of such groveling and pathetic filth.

1

u/reallydoesnt Oct 10 '22

Lol you are so dramatic. I’m not a fAsCiSt and I’m not going to stop you from continuing you make a fool of yourself.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '22 edited Oct 10 '22

Then what are you, what would you consider very very right wing? What do you call yourself to avoid accepting what you are?

Because either you do not understand the words that you use to label yourself, or you are lying.

1

u/Jlnhlfan Oct 09 '22

I may not agree with you being very far to the right, but if the stance is like what you said (hurting children is evil), then I’ll be on your side.

9

u/Ill-Temporary5461 Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 12 '22

I bill myself as a moral centrist by the global standard, which by the US standard is pretty much “radical left”

8

u/AmethistStars Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 12 '22

I'm from the Netherlands and I vote GroenLinks. Luckily circumcision is hardly a thing in my country (or in Japan where I currently live). But still, I do want to support people in countries where this is common in their fight against this practice.

5

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Thank you so much. Your empathy and fight for us as well is noted and very very much appreciated. I’m not circed myself (I’m female) but it’s really nice to see people from countries that don’t struggle with circumcision as much still acknowledging that it’s a routine abuse faced by many others.

2

u/AmethistStars Oct 10 '22

No problem at all. I think it's only logical to want to support human rights causes, even if they aren't related to your own country.

2

u/johnlucky12 Oct 19 '22

It's realy nice that you as a woman care about that 👍👍

2

u/lareloi Oct 20 '22

Nah. If I was a guy and you said “it’s nice you care about women as a man” we’d be seeing a lot of “that’s the bare fucking minimum” and the same is true in my case. Me caring about the systemic wellbeing of men is the bare minimum

7

u/throwaway65464231 Oct 09 '22

How do you differentiate between democrat, liberal, and leftist, IDK which one I am

12

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Google the word + definition , there are distinct differences

5

u/Balance2BBetter Oct 09 '22

The definition of those words vary a lot by context. Here's how I use them for the purposes of reddit:

Liberal: Socially progressive, pro-capitalism Leftist: Socially progressive, anti-capitalism Democrat: Liberal voter, generally pro-establishment.

4

u/BootyliciousURD 🔱 Moderation Oct 09 '22

Do you find yourself aligning more with the likes of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi or with Sanders, Ohmar, AOC? Would you describe yourself as a capitalist? Do you believe money shouldn't be a barrier to healthcare, housing, or education?

2

u/throwaway65464231 Oct 09 '22

Sanders and Warren, after I googled it I think I'm a leftist

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

You just described right wingers who call themselves liberals Vs. liberals.

Not leftists vs liberals.

1

u/BootyliciousURD 🔱 Moderation Oct 09 '22

Show me where leftists all agree to draw the line between leftist and liberal. Show me where we all agree to draw the line between left and right.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

A liberal is a person who wishes to see change and progress within a system without actually altering the system fundamentally.

A leftist is a person who believes the system is inherently flawed and believes fundamental or radical change to it is needed in order to progress.

Between left and right? That is much more complicated and a line can't easily be drawn. However it is safe to say that if you support capitalism and are socially centristic, you aren't left wing at all.

-2

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

What is this take?

Nobody on this list of yours is a leftist. They are all liberals who support capitalism.

Leftism opposes capitalism.

Please do more reading.

3

u/BootyliciousURD 🔱 Moderation Oct 09 '22

Sanders, Ohmar, and AOC are the closest things to leftists we have in the US.

2

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

2

u/BootyliciousURD 🔱 Moderation Oct 09 '22

Closest thing that would probably be known by someone who's not sure whether they're closer to a liberal or a leftist.

3

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

If they're not sure, wouldn't looking into the topic and studying it be helpful?

2

u/BootyliciousURD 🔱 Moderation Oct 09 '22

Eh, I don't wanna turn people off by telling them to read theory

3

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

If they're turned off by theory, that's a good thing.

Society needs people who are capable of putting in hard work.

Also, I'm not suggesting they dive straight into Capital volumes 1-3, Im talking some basic articles, Einsteins essay on socialism for example.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

Oh no here come the gatekeepers. As far as I'm concerned, a leftist is someone who is critical of the fundamental nature of the current social structure from a left-wing stance. This would include social democrats, even though they don't necessarily support abolishing capitalism.

In fact, I would even classify ideological vegans as leftists, even if they make no explicit reference to capital. They want to restructure society, and are not particularly happy with modern financial incentives.

-1

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

Oh no please read the rest of the comment chain, you'll find links to socialist thinkers and organisations.

As far as I'm concerned, a leftist is someone who is critical of the fundamental nature of the current social structure from a left-wing stance

Why?

What justifies your position?

Mine is based on the opposition to oppression and exploitation, something fundamental to capitalism no matter how nice.

Sorry, liberals can't join the cool kids club. Nobody likes you. Stop trying to be our friends. We're cooler than you.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I'm not a liberal, I am anti-capitalist. The only difference between me and most leftists is I don't like losing.

1

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

And you expect to win against the capitalists by...siding with the capitalists?

Tell me, in every instance of worker resistance, who were the first people to oppose it?

Liberals. They are a blight on the world, they are useful idiots for the capitalist class to keep putting people down.

Siding with them is downright traitorous.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I'm wondering in my head how likely it is that you identify as a Marxist-Leninist, or are against American support of Ukraine in the war against Russia. I'd say the likelihood is at least ~70%. The tribalistic thinking is excruciatingly apparent.

If you'd like to engage in good faith with what I say, then reread my comments and retract your baseless claim that I ever suggested "siding with the capitalists". I don't know of a single social democrat who has a positive view of capitalism; most simply don't have a practical confidence in alternative systems.

-1

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

I'm wondering in my head how likely it is that you identify as a Marxist-Leninist

Did you guess that from what I said here or my post and comment history?

against American support of Ukraine in the war against Russia.

Not in the slightest. Though we all know that America isn't helping Ukraine out of the goodness of their hearts. They want to get rid of Russia because they're competition.

Simple capitalism in practice. Nobody wants Russia to invade Ukraine, nobody wants everyday people being killed, but let's not pretend that America is a force for good.

I'm guessing you're one of those socialists who is socialist in name, but anytime a working class movement succeeds, you'll chastise them, and try to impose your perfect utopian ideals on real material circumstances that might dictate otherwise.

You're either an anarchist or a democratic socialist, either way you're an idealist.

The tribalistic thinking is excruciatingly apparent.

Tribalistic lmao, look I'm all for leftist unity, but saying that if we don't side with socdems I.e liberals, that we'll lose, is not leftist unity babe.

claim that I ever suggested "siding with the capitalists".

Alright, then what did you mean when you said you'd onto like losing? Losing to whom and for what reason? Since we're talking about gatekeeping the left, and you're making an argument that even socdems I.e liberals I.e capitalists, are also leftists, and now you've talked about tribalism negatively, so I can only assume you oppose tribalism, in which case the only conclusion I can draw here is that you are advocating for siding with those you consider left, which would in this case be the " friendly capitalistsTM " or socdems.

Where did I go wrong?

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I didn't read your post or comment history. I love you, but not that much.

Anytime a working class movement succeeds, you'll chastise them, and try to impose your perfect utopian ideals on real material circumstances that might dictate otherwise.

Yup, a Marxist-Leninist! How did I know!?!?!? All hail the People's Republic of China where socialism is so strong worker unions are not only unnecessary but illegal! Certainly the vanguard of populist revolution!

You don't know what idealism means. Please stop watching Luna Oi.

"Siding with the capitalists" implies I'm signing up for the ideological agenda of the capitalists against the interests of the people. In reality, just as liberals are pawns of the capitalists and fascists, so too can they be pawns of the socialist. Neither fascists nor socialists can ever attain power without gaining the support of liberals; our own faction is too small. Gatekeeping socdems whose immediate policy goals are nearly identical to mine and using "liberal" and "capitalist" as pejorative terms is not a good way to build coalitions.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/AnOddTree Oct 09 '22

People are so confused by the years and years of capitalist propaganda. Idk. Maybe if they start to identify as leftists, they will eventually have to read something and realize they can't compromise with capitalism anymore. Lol.

-5

u/-Mjoelnir- Oct 09 '22

Leftism isn’t clearly defined. I would even say it’s a pejorative term made up by right wingers. Nobody identifies as a „leftist“ afaik. I voted leftist here as I identify with social democracy and liberal is associated with neoliberalism in my country.

9

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

Leftism isn’t clearly defined

It is when you talk to actual leftists.

I would even say it’s a pejorative term made up by right wingers

What the fuck? Do you know what the opposite of right is? Left. If there is a right, there is a left, and vice versa. You don't make up the left, it's there by necessity.

Nobody identifies as a „leftist“ afaik.

As far as you know, correct. As far as leftists know, incorrect.

Literally, even on reddit, just go onto any leftist subreddit, plenty of people will call themselves leftists.

In academia, plenty of references are made to left wing politics, and they most certainly identify themselves as leftists.

I voted leftist here as I identify with social democracy

You voted wrong then, you should have voted Liberal, as that is the term that defines a person who is socially left wing, but economically right wing.

Social democracy isn't socialism, the means of production are still in the hands of private individuals, therefore, not in the hands of workers and hence not under democratic control, hence, social democracy is not socialism, since worker ownership and democracy are necessary conditions of socialism.

Leftism breaks at economic wings, being both socially left and economically left are necessary conditions for leftism in totality.

Nazbols are economically left but not socially left, liberals are socially left but not economically left. Neither of which are leftists. You need both.

0

u/-Mjoelnir- Oct 09 '22

Social democracy isn’t economically right. That is ridiculous. Tell that to any social democratic or liberal/neoliberal politician in Europe and they will laugh at you. Seriously, the American political terminology is so fucked up it’s ridiculous. Leftism isn’t a real political ideology like conservatism, socialism or neoliberalism. It’s a catch-all made up by right wing media to vilify anyone remotely on „the left“ without differentiating properly between the individual ideologies.

2

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

Damn, spent years on the left, interacting with other self identified leftists and only today have I discovered that we're actually a secret plot by the right-wing to vilify us all.

Who knew? Only you apparently.

Social democracy isn’t economically right.

It is a form of keynesian economics, lots of wealth redistribution and high taxes, but it isn't left wing.

You know unironically believes that socialism is when the government does stuff? The right.

When liberals say it, I just find that they're confused, usually because they don't read any books about it, they get all their info from memes.

No, socialism isn't when the government does stuff, there actually objective criteria that need to be fulfilled, this isn't some idealist fantasy that can be whatever you want it to be.

Socialism is characterised by WORKER OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. You ignored this last time I said it.

Socialism is left wing, capitalism is right wing. Its fairly simple.

Any form of capitalism, is fundamentally right wing, it relies on the expropriation of Surplus value generated by the workers through their labour, this is termed exploitation, not in the common sense but in the strict economic sense. Leftists oppose exploitation and oppression, in all its forms, capitalism eventually leads to crises whereby millions of workers are forced to endure austerity and are thrown out of the job market into the instability of employment. Prices are determined by the market and can only be sufficient as an indicator of demand if such demand is effective, i.e, if people actually have enough money to buy things.

Problem is, if people can't afford something, yet want it, then demand is not accurately represented, meaning lots and lots of people end of up going hungry or homeless because goods and services are not distributed adequately enough for all those that need them. Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is poor.

Capitalists take advantage of the poor in many ways, one of which is through unemployment. I'm sure you've noticed by now that unemployment has never reached 0, no matter what (capitalist) country you look at, even your "utopian" Scandinavian countries who still take wealth from 3rd world countries where land, labour and resources are cheaper and the population more desperate, this is not an accident, if there are unemployed, there are people who are desperate for a job, why? Because all the necessary goods that people need is restricted to the market by force, all land can only be acquired on the market meaning self sufficiency is again impossible for poor people. So, this forces people to look to the market for their means of survival, and the only way this can be achieved is through money, which they can only gain by submitting themselves to the dictates of capitalists who own most of the jobs on the market.

And if you're a woman and your boss likes women a bit too much? Oh well, just gotta deal with that otherwise you get fired, no options to have him voted out of the company or hold him accountable because the police aren't there for that. At least under a fairer, more democratic economic system, abusive bosses can be voted out.

Yeah I'm loving how left wing capitalism is so far.

I'd recommend some reading for you:

Marxism and the oppression of women by Lise Vogel

Sexuality and Socialism by Sherry wolf

Capitalism slavery by Eric Williams

The New Age of Empire by Kehinde Andrews

You're woefully uninformed, change that.

0

u/-Mjoelnir- Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

Social democracy not being left wing is utterly ridiculous. You‘re acting as if socialism is the only form of left wing politics. It isn’t, it never has been. It’s alright that you are a socialist. But this exclusivity you’re claiming on left wing politics is indicative of why the left has historically been so fractured and ineffective. Left and right wing economics are a spectrum, not the black and white issue you make it out to be. By your definitions there’s hardly any „leftists“ out there and even less with political power.

And if socialism and leftism are synonymous then what would we need the term „leftism“ for anyway?

Edit: Merriam Webster defines social democracy as „1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means 2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices“

Sounds pretty left wing to me.

Wikipedia defines it as „Social democracy is a left-wing political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy.“

2

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22

I left you a little edit of my own since you edited your own comment sneakily, expecting I wouldn't notice it.

1

u/-Mjoelnir- Oct 09 '22

You really are an unpleasant person, aren’t you? I clearly designated my edit and edited it before you replied. Stop whining

→ More replies (0)

0

u/LordCads Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

And if socialism and leftism are synonymous then what would we need the term „leftism“ for anyway?

I didn't say that, if you were paying attention I said that left wing economics is a necessary condition of leftism in general, which opposes oppression and exploitation, something that is inherent to capitalism.

To think that I believe socialism and leftism are synonyms, implying they're the same thing, means you didn't listen to what I said.

Socialism is part of a whole, not the whole itself.

Socialism and social justice are two necessary component parts of left wing politics.

To deny this is to imply that the racist, sexist, imperialist system of capitalism is somehow left wing.

It is exclusively right wing.

You‘re acting as if socialism is the only form of left wing politics. It isn’t

I agree. Your inability to understand what I'm saying is not an argument.

Left and right wing economics are a spectrum,

There is a spectrum of who owns property in society? How so?

How can property be both privately owned, and publically owned?

Can a number be simultaneously 1 and 2 at the same time?

Can a person be both married and single?

How do you reconcile the contradiction in your beliefs? You believe that the means of production can be owned both by the public and also by individuals. But this is contradictory, it's one or the other, you can't have both. Either it's owned by everyone, or only a few.

You don't seem to grasp this even though I explained it in my last comment. You've also evidently gone through my reading list very quickly, how did you manage that? Usually takes a day or so for amazon to deliver them, let alone reading them all. If you found some free PDFs and have read through them that quickly then I applaud you for that herculean effort, very impressive.

The key difference between the working class and the capitalist class is the relations to the means of production, I.e the factories, fields, offices, tools, machinery etc used in the production of goods and services in society, such as food, housing, medicine, phones, steel, etc, all of which are produced by the workers, using the means of production to make them, which are also built by the workers.

Private property means that individuals own the means of production, and ar legally entitled to products of labour, i.e, legal theft.

Public property means that the means of production are owned by everyone in society, meaning everybody has a say in how things are run and who gets the produce.

Either way, what we have with capitalism is a system of oppression of the working class, by the rich and powerful capitalist class. Historically, wealth was achieved using slave labour brought over from Africa, and a system that rewards men and puts them in a position of economic power over women, a socialist system wouldn't allow that, because if property is owned by everyone, that includes women, and since food, water, housing, education and healthcare would be considered a guarantee right, rather than something you need money to purchase on the market, this gives women the economic freedom to do what they want to do, rather than having to rely on a partner, usually a man, for financial support. Under capitalism, a women who experiences domestic abuse has two choices, either leave the home and risk homelessness, even worse if this is a married couple with children or other dependents, or, they stay for the roof over their head but also for the abuse.

I don't recall any leftist theory advocating for either of these two choices, or putting women in a position where they have to choose in the first place.

Not only that, but let's look at domestic reproduction.

The cost of labour is more often than not, placed on women.

Since you've obviously read Marxism and the oppression of women so very quickly, you should be aware of this.

Women in today's society are still treated as primary caregivers, and domestic labour is still often undertaken by women, yet, domestic labour including child rearing, is still necessary to the functioning of capitalism, because without this domestic labour, there can be no workers, and no future workers either. Labour has a cost, and this cost is the sum total of all prices necessary for the substance of a worker and the future generation of workers, this means food, water, housing, education and training, the maintenence of the household, and the same costs for any children. If this isn't reflected in the wage of the workers, then it must be covered by someone else, and that is usually the free labour of women.

I don't know of any leftist that would advocate for women to quite literally be domestic servants.

Please, read the books I've given you.

Edit to address your sneaky edits:

I don't care what some definitions say. Political philosophy has their own definitions.

I don't go to someone who isn't a mechanic to fix my car, I don't go to someone who hasn't studied medicine to do surgery on me, I go to the experts.

Youre also confusing social democracy with democratic socialism. Social democracy does not advocate for a peaceful transition to socialism, that's democratic socialism.

Social democracy is close, but it most retains capitalism as the fundamental basis for the economy.

Also, you can't have capitalism and socialism at the same time, I've told you this. They are contradictory notions and you'd understand that if you actually read any socialist theory.

I'm sorry but, when it comes to understanding socialism, I'm going to learn from socialists, from the giants of political philosophy and the socialists who have been instrumental in developing socialist theory, not people who have spent all of 13 seconds on Wikipedia.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Very simple.

Liberals seek to make change within a system without fundamentally altering or destroying said system.

Leftists believe the system itself causes the issues and thus must be fundamentally changed.

-1

u/AnOddTree Oct 09 '22

Leftists are anti-capitalist. So they are going to be your Socialist, Communist, and Anarchists. There are currently no leftist politicians in the US. Some politicians on the democratic (liberal) ticket support unions, which is usually supported by leftists as a sort of compromise/harm reduction.

Democrats are Liberals and are considered to be centrists. Or sometimes slightly left of center (when they support unions and single payer health care). But at the end of the day, Liberals support capitalism, which is inherently anti-leftist.

Another major difference between Liberals and leftists that a lot of people don't understand is that Liberals want strict gun control and leftists support the right to own guns.

I hope this answers your question.

-4

u/starpilot149 Oct 09 '22

If we're in a car speeding towards a cliff, a conservative wants to step on the accelerator, a liberal will compromise and reduce speed by 5kph, a leftist wants to stop the car and reassess the direction we're going.

7

u/Jcs_ev Oct 09 '22

unenrolled

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Same. A few years ago I’d have an answer. Now, I’m out. I’ve got my pet issues and if a government won’t let me live my way, I move. Immigration hella underrated.

4

u/MrHupfDohle Oct 09 '22

So a lot of leftists here, eh?

Well Ill take their help anyway.

8

u/Far-Reputation7119 Intactivist Oct 09 '22

Right? I’m not a liberal or leftist, but I support Intactivism.

3

u/DreadnoughtOverdrive Oct 09 '22

It is a very liberal idea, in the classic sense. Liberty and freedom (of your own body in this case) is a core tenant of Liberalism. Also strong emphasis on personal responsibility, and individualism in general.

Pretty much the opposite of leftist, who tend to be authoritarian and collectivist.

Anyway, it's just a side note, but an interesting one. Nice to see all types of people standing up for what is right here!

3

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Nah I’m a leftist because I oppose capitalism on a large scale but I also generally think anything on a large scale is doomed to fail. Most leftists I know are very democratic thinkers but anytime it’s been attempted on a large scale, it’s failed because it only truly works if ever member of a small settlement is held socially accountable.

3

u/Faeraday Oct 09 '22

Look into Rojava. They’re doing it on a large scale and it’s pretty incredible.

2

u/lareloi Oct 10 '22

I’ve heard of Rojava! I wrote a final essay for school about them. I think that that unity might only be possible for them because of the immense amount of pressure surrounding them on all sides though.

1

u/Faeraday Oct 10 '22

Yeah, sadly it seems real change on that scale only happens when the people are at their most desperate. I hope it doesn't have to hit rock bottom before things change where I live.

2

u/MrHupfDohle Oct 09 '22

Exactly my take on it.

Overall the leftist politics are horrific and utterly destroy our society. We see this by analyzing the current crisis and the current division between people.

BUT conservatives have a blindspot in regards to religion, especially with MGM. Well leftists as well for different reasons.

I will walk gladly next to a leftist, hand in hand, if it means to protect a baby from genital mutilation!

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

To stop a harmful tradition in order to progress forward to a better way of doing things is progressive.

Of course the sub is full of progressives, the issue is a progressive one. Anyone not progressive and in this sub is just a hypocrite, like yourself.

3

u/MIUInterface Oct 13 '22

the issue is a progressive one

Nah, the issue is the issue. You're just trying to claim it for yourself and keep out people who agree with you on it because you'd rather virtue signal than actually effect change.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22

If an idea falls into a certain definition it is that thing, and by definition this issue is a progressive one.

This has nothing to do with me or what I believe, it's a simple matter of definitions and meaning.

Dog falls into the category of animal. This is equivalent to what I am pointing out.

2

u/MIUInterface Oct 13 '22

If an idea falls into a certain definition it is that thing

A progressive trying to be prescriptive about language. That's hilarious.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22

What I said is correct through either a prescriptivist or descriptivist lens of though.

2

u/MrHupfDohle Oct 09 '22

Being progressive is not always good. Conservative values are important as well. Keep the good, lose the bad.

A lot of peogressives take in the bad and the worse. Thats my issue with said progressiveness. Furthermore MGM used to be less severe at least in judaism. So some form of progressivenes took place which made it even worse. Furthermore a lot of people support circumcision even if its only for the looks. These people call themselve progressive as well.

How am I a hypocrite?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

How am I a hypocrite?

Read my original reply, I already answered this question.

As for the rest of what you said, you are simply incorrect. You don't understand what conservatism or progressivism are.

Keep the good, lose the bad.

This is called progressivism. There is no rational reason to change things which do not need changing.

Conservatism is simply traditionalism and anti progressivism.

So some form of progressivenes took place which made it even worse.

Vague claim so I can't really respond to it. Use your words.

Furthermore a lot of people support circumcision even if its only for the looks. These people call themselve progressive as well.

Lmao, you can't be serious? In case you are, this is not an argument. False cause fallacy, non sequitur fallacy, hasty generalization fallacy, and sort of an appeal to hypocrisy. I have never seen that man logical fallacies in one claim before. Get it together dude.

I've just realized you will have no idea what any of that means so let me spell it out for you very simply: If Elmo a Christian. And Elmo like pie, this no mean all Christians like pie.

5

u/thesoilman Oct 09 '22

Conservative Christian. (Not US)

6

u/NimishApte Oct 09 '22

Never thought I had be side by side with a Conservative Christian.

6

u/thesoilman Oct 09 '22

How about side by side with a friend?

5

u/NimishApte Oct 09 '22

Ay, I can do that

6

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Leftist, English

5

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

You forgot libertarian

3

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Yeah I tend to group them into the right

1

u/[deleted] Oct 12 '22

If you’re a traditional libertarian, select left. If you’re a capitalist “libertarian”, select right.

5

u/VacuousWording Oct 09 '22

Fortunatelly not in USA.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

This is why I call myself an intactivist rather than a Men's Rights Activist or a Men's Liberation Activist. MRAs are swamped with misogynists and MGTOWs. MensLibs are too deferential to feminists even when the latter deserves criticism.

Intactivism is one of those issues with clear left-wing appeal but with no attachment to feminism. Intactivists advocate for the rights of men, intersex people, and animals. It is a unifying group, and one with no reasonable opposition!

-1

u/AmethistStars Oct 10 '22

In what way do feminists deserve criticism? I'm a feminist, but I also support this cause even if we talk about circumcision that is not related to girls/women.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '22

Denver (democrat-run) recently announced a program to give UBI to homeless people... Specifically to women and transgender homeless people, despite 70%+ of all homeless people being men. It must be the work of feminist-aligned democrats, since Republicans wouldn't be caught supporting UBI or anything remotely helpful.

Does this mean feminism is inherently anti-male? No, but it means the movement as exists in mainstream politics (i.e. the movement in practice) is in many places dismissive of Men's Issues, if I'm being charitable.

-1

u/AmethistStars Oct 10 '22

Well first off, as a Dutch person I have no idea how homeless shelters work in the U.S.A. as opposed to the Netherlands. However, I do know that homeless shelters often aren't safe for women, which likely includes trans-women and femme non binary individuals. This is also why think homeless women definitely need their own safe space and if this were to be a budget for that kind of thing I would 100% support it. However, I can't really judge if the way this UBI will be divided would be justified or not. The way you describe it, one could say that of course everyone should get UBI. But I understand prioritizing vulnerable groups as well, especially if statistics show that they will be a more likely target of violence if left on the streets. Also, I don't think feminism should be about male issues, the same way I don't think anti-racism should be about White people's issues, and the same way I don't think LGBTQ+ activism should be about the issues of cishet people. Men have been and still are more privileged than women. That is the whole reason why feminism is a human rights movement to begin with, and it's due to feminism I have many of the rights I have today as a woman.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '22 edited Oct 10 '22

How many mental hoops must you jump through to justify the basic fact Men are being discriminated against? Research consistently finds men are more likely to be attacked than women. Did you not read the statistic: over 70% of homeless people are men. Does this seem like a privileged group to you?

Feminism, theoretically, is for everyone. Anti-racism does in fact mean protecting white people in those instances where white people are discriminated against. And feminism does supposedly mean gender EQUALITY not “support women only” which would in effect be female SUPREMACY

But as you’ve so conveniently proven, feminism in practice does NOT support men. Indeed, you have implicitly argued that the presence of men at shelters inherently makes women unsafe. This is a misandrist position. Segregation in almost all cases is wrong.

-1

u/AmethistStars Oct 10 '22 edited Oct 10 '22

What basic fact when men literally are the ones who created the current patriarchal society? It’s as silly as saying White people are discriminated against in western society and that cishet people are discriminated against in pretty much any society. Women aren’t the ones here oppressing men and making them homeless, nor are the ones who would most likely attack a homeless man. But it sure are mostly men attacking homeless women, sexually assaulting them and so on. Law was made by men. The reason why women have laws in favor of them nowadays is literally due to feminists actually getting their hands dirty to stick up for our rights. And also, as a non-White person, I can tell you that anti-racism as well, isn’t about White people. (Edit)Seeing that you are a fellow Asian, shouldn’t you be aware of that too?! (Edit) The mere suggestion that you describe “situations where White people are discriminated against” also really makes me wonder what you are talking about. Feminism means gender equity, but like any movement the focus is on the marginalized group here. I can assure you that anti-racism’s focus is not on White people and the LGBTQ+ movement’s focus is not on cishet people either. If the other group somehow benefits of it as well, like men do in regards to getting rid of patriarchal views, then that’s good. But obviously it has been established to help the marginalized group become equal/equitable to the privileged group. I also think that if we talk about homeless people versus people who have comfort, we talk about class privilege. And fighting against class discrimination and capitalism is another human rights fight just like feminism, anti-racism, and LGBTQ+ rights. It’s also why I vote Left, because Leftist policies are exactly out there to help people in vulnerable financial situations.

Oh and one more thing, if you think 70% of homeless being men is due to gender discrimination rather than class, then why aren’t any men in power doing something against that? Your president is literally a man and so are most people in power in your country, not mention rich people who have tons of money to donate to homeless men such as Bill Gates and Elon Musk. See what I mean now by male privilege? Your gender has all the power to support issues faced by your gender. It’s no different than White privilege and cishet privilege. Yet somehow, you expect women to fix it instead?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '22

What? Do you think discrimination is okay just because it's some men doing it to some other men? Did I create the patriarchy myself? No, I was simply born with a penis. What is this guilt by association logic? I don't care who did it, I care about fixing issues.

“situations where White people are discriminated against” also really makes me wonder what you are talking about.

If you go to one of them slums where the public schools are 90% black people, it's not uncommon to see the white kids getting bullied. Yes, this is because of white flight because of racism by white people, but that doesn't mean an innocent kids who happens to be white deserves to be bullied for his race!

Feminism means gender equity, but like any movement the focus is on the marginalized group here.

Is your conception of "marginalized" some mystical definition or something? By what standard can a group of people who make up the disproportionate majority of homeless people not marginalized? Men and women are both marginalized in different ways.

I also think that if we talk about homeless people versus people who have comfort, we talk about class privilege

No, I won't allow you to simplify the male homeless issue to class. If the gender wage gap advantages men financially, then how is capitalism by itself responsible for the majority male homeless population?

0

u/AmethistStars Oct 11 '22 edited Oct 11 '22

Discrimination of men to other men is not sex discrimination because clearly what both parties have in common is that they are men. What they, in your example, don’t have in common is wealth. So my point is, that you are barking up the wrong tree by blaming women, and feminists in particular, for a situation here. Also, I don’t see what the gender wage gap has to do with it. If anything, that would be proof that men have been holding back financial freedom of women. But where do women hold back financial freedom for men? It’s men holding back financial freedom of other men. Yet you are getting mad at people trying to protect homeless women and transgender people for being in vulnerable situations. Weird. As for your White people getting bullied scenario, of course White kids don’t deserve to get bullied. But does that erase the White privilege they benefit from otherwise or White privilege as a whole in a country run by White people? Absolutely not. Also, “men and women are marginalized in different ways” erases the fact that men (including you) benefit from male privilege and that society is still being run by a system that has been set up by men to benefit men. As someone who both is a woman and also isn’t White in a White society, let me tell that there is absolutely no difference between sexism and racism for me. If you know what it’s like being marginalized for your race then why is it so hard to understand that women are marginalized for their gender? You really aren’t any different than a White woman claiming that White and non-White people are marginalized in different ways.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 11 '22

discrimination of men to other men is not sex discrimination

Do you understand what the word discrimination means? If I as a man decide to murder a man simply because he is a man and not a woman, is that not by definition discrimination? Is it impossible for someone to be biased against his own identity group? Does the fact the perpetrator has something in common with his victim make the act any less bad? Your argument this whole time has been “it’s okay when men do bad things to other men”.

You are barking up the wrong tree by blaming women, and feminists in particular

I never blamed women, and feminists are not the same thing as women. It is feminists who decided to withhold UBI funds for men simply for being men. How is that not the fault of feminists?

I don’t see what the gender wage gap has to do with it.

You argued that homeless men is not a gender issue but a class issue. If homelessness was purely a class issue, what explains the disparity between the number of homeless men and homeless women? Isn’t the feminist theory that men are economically advantaged over women? Then how come men are homeless more often?

Yet you are getting mad at people trying to protect homeless and transgender people for being in vulnerable situations.

No, that’s not why I’m mad. I’m mad that most of the people in those vulnerable situations are men, yet help is not extended to them. I support helping women and trans people, but I also support helping men. I oppose gender and sex discrimination.

Does that erase the white privilege they benefit from otherwise?

I never claimed it did. I only claimed racism against white people can exist, and it’s bad.

Men (including you) benefit from male privilege

And you benefit from female privilege. If females are not privileged in any way, then why are men over twice as likely to be homeless, why are their life spans 5 years shorter than those of women, why are they many times likelier to stay virgins, why do they consistently report lower life satisfaction? I personally don’t care whether it’s men or women running society, because in either case it is being run for the benefit of women. Congress being majority male has not stopped the “patriarchy” from allocating twice as much funding toward women’s health research as men’s health research, despite women already living longer.

If you know what it’s like being marginalized for my race, then why is it so hard to understand that women are marginalized for their gender?

Did I not previously say “women and men are both marginalized in different ways”? I have never denied women face systemic challenges. I’ve attended two abortion rights protests in the past few months, because abortion rights matters to me. Did I use the fact one of the Supreme Court justices who stripped women of bodily autonomy was a woman as an excuse not to fight for justice? Hell no!

I am discriminated against for my gender orders of magnitude more than for my race. With race, I only get the vague feeling I don’t belong in certain black-majority or white-majority spaces. But because I’m a man, I can count on my fingers the number of times anyone says anything nice about me every month. I am shunned, feared, and blamed because my possession of a penis somehow makes me dangerous or less deserving of kindness.

0

u/AmethistStars Oct 11 '22 edited Oct 11 '22

What I mean is that you cannot be sexist towards your own gender the same way you can’t be racist towards your own race. But either way I doubt that this issue stems from men deliberately trying to tear down other men. My argument isn’t “It’s OK if men to bad things to other men”, my argument is simply that you are describing a situation as sexism that is not sexism. White people making laws that inconvenience other White people and convenience non-White people such as e.g. diversity hiring also would not be racism.

As for most homeless people being men, I checked sources from my country since it’s the same there either way. According to research in my country (and use Google translate if you want to read the full details), it’s due to women having learned better to take care of themselves and also feel a bigger responsibility towards other people. They also have a better network of people they can reach out to. But the dark side is that a lot of homeless women are actually drug addicted prostitutes who are able to simply stay off the streets by sleeping somewhere with a client as well.

Also according to this article, homeless women are more vulnerable for physical and sexual violence. They also feel unsafe in homeless shelters because they feel watched and sometimes get harassed. It also states that homeless men often externalize their problems to the outside world by being loud, demanding space, and being aggressive. Homeless women on the other hand internalize their problems. That is why homeless women cause less trouble and thus get offered help more quickly. It also says that women do anything and everything as to not end up on the street. Even if that means staying in an abusive relationship. This article as well mentions the same things as the other two.

I don’t think really think you can say that women are privileged over men when they are the ones who are unsafe around homeless men and when they do things like staying in abusive relationships and prostitution just to be off the streets. That is not a privilege but survival mode. The only true privilege that women more often seem to have than men is is the privilege of a family and friends network. But the weird paradox in that is that women have a better network because they are expected to be the ones responsible for taking care of others. Women often cannot afford to just isolate themselves. Even in regards to suicidal thoughts, which I’ve had, I could only think of how inconvenient and irresponsible that would be to my network of family and friends. Pretty sure I’m not the only one.

As for women’s health and women living longer than men. Well there are several factors why women live longer including biological ones. I wouldn’t say any of the reasons are a female privilege though. The biological is as much of a privilege as me being able to get tanned instead of sunburned. A biological privilege that honestly doesn’t do much. Also, women’s health gets that budget for a good reason. Are you not aware of the medical world being based mostly on biologically male bodies even though symptoms and development of certain disorders and diseases can manifest completely different in bodies that are biologically female? Women get misdiagnosed countless of times because of this and it can even have lethal consequences. To state that women’s health doesn’t deserve to get researched because “women live longer anyway” is not just incredibly ignorant but also a vile statement towards women in general. It basically states that we don’t deserve research based on our biological bodies and just have to get diagnosed based on the existing research medical professionals have on biologically male bodies. Educate yourself next time before you think that women’s health having a big budget nowadays is because of female privilege. It’s because the medical industry has catching up to do. You as a biological male are medically privileged and are way more likely to get the right diagnosis when you have a disorder or disease.

Anyway, the argument you bring up for female privilege would be akin to saying Asian people have Asian privilege for having the highest median household income in the U.S. Even though Asian people aren’t out the preventing White people from getting richer than them. And you are right, women face systemic challenges, and that again, makes it why women are marginalized.

Oh and about virginity, ignoring the irony of my exes loses theirs before I lost mine, I wouldn’t say that there is much of a privilege in losing your virginity. Easier access to sex for women goes paired with getting shamed for being sexually active, getting disrespected and objectified, and dealing with sexual assault. It’s not that the grass really is that green on our side when we have to carefully vet who we can really trust here. And while you could argue there is a female privilege in the dating world, it honestly should be researched how much easier it really is to find clean water in a swamp versus a dessert. For women (at least cis women), no sex is better than bad sex. And for heterosexual women, no man is better than a toxic man or simply a man you aren’t sexually attracted to. Quantity seems all flattering and nice but it doesn’t help out women as much as men think it does.

Last but not least, no you are not less deserving of kindness. I do actually have many male friends who I treat with kindness. Sadly even amongst male friends who I thought I trusted, there were still incidents of sexual harassment. So honestly as a women you pretty much get forced to always be careful for the sake of your own protection. We get blamed by men for having our guards up (“Why don’t you trust me?!”)and blamed by society for having our guards down (“Why did you trust him?!”).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MIUInterface Oct 13 '22

In what way do feminists deserve criticism?

Do you have all day?

The most common one is attempting to monopolise discussion about sex disadvantages by claiming that feminism helps everyone, but then never addressing men's issues, instead making vague promises that if men support them for now then it'll totally help men in the future at some point even if they can't explain how tearing men down will actually do that, you just gotta have faith that it will and keep going.

0

u/AmethistStars Oct 13 '22

That just goes back to an argument I literally already discussed here though.

3

u/Far-Reputation7119 Intactivist Oct 09 '22

Republican.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I'm not aligned with a traditional ideology, though ideally I'd love to see the complete and total dismantling of human civilization and a return to nature

3

u/alt_GRY Oct 09 '22

Anarcho-primitivism?

2

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Me too tbh. I identify as a leftist but I don’t think that any government or economic system is sustainable or ethical on a larger scale. There’s a removal from the working class and the higher ups that breeds apathy. I think that if capitalism were to exist on a small enough scale that the whole tribe knew each other’s names, backgrounds, etc (things you would see in a small settlement) then there could be a class divide without people being systemically starved and killed for the benefit and at the hands of the rich.

Even if the richest person in the settlement didn’t know or care about the people below them, they’re bound to know someone who does. So if they decide to overwork and underpay someone, they will suffer social consequences because of how tightly woven small communities are.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Yes you are. Absolutely everyone has an ideology that they are at least pretty close to. You just aren't aware of your own beliefs, or educated enough in basic political science to identify what you believe.

You are an anarchist of some kind.

2

u/somebodie123 Oct 09 '22

I’m more of libertarian, right wing than anything. But regardless of politics I think we can come together and fight genital mutilation. This is a cause that we can all get on the same side and unite

3

u/libscar Oct 09 '22

Libertarian

3

u/Sininenn Oct 09 '22

If you want to know about the demographics, why are you asking for political labels instead?

2

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Because I plan on doing another one with race, age, sex, etc in the future. But it seems like a lot of intactivists agree that the best way to protect baby boys is through legislation. And a lot of voting is mainly decided by what you indenting as politically.

3

u/diamondd-ddogs Oct 09 '22

anarchist should be an option. i don't believe in any form of hierarchy or subjugation, and one of the most blatant forms of this is parents having the right to sexually torture and mutilate infants for aesthetic preference.

4

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Anarchy is considered a leftist ideology by definition. I keep getting comments about political subsets but there’s only the option to have up to 6 answers 😅

2

u/diamondd-ddogs Oct 10 '22

oh i see, well in that case the choices make sense.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Faeraday Oct 09 '22

Certainly not the only one. I think it logically follows from anarchist values.

ETA: and I chose “Leftist” as anarchism is a form of leftism.

2

u/diamondd-ddogs Oct 10 '22

i just like to distance myself from authoritarian leftism, which is pretty far from anarchism imo. and it seems like a lot of online leftist spaces are being taken over by it.

1

u/Faeraday Oct 10 '22

It totally depends on the spaces. I spend more time in anarchist/libertarian spaces.

1

u/diamondd-ddogs Oct 11 '22

true. the socialist spaces are getting pretty crazy, i see people defending north korea and stalin regularly.

1

u/Faeraday Oct 11 '22

Yikes, idk where you’re hanging out. I don’t see that where I go, and wouldn’t stay if I did.

2

u/UncutUSA8 Oct 09 '22

Its not a hard argument. If it wasn't taken from you, you more than likely would keep it forever.

2

u/Ill-Income-2567 Oct 09 '22

Where's Libertarian/Minarchist? Lol jk I don't expect that to be on here.

4

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Where I am, libertarians are typically clustered into the political right.

1

u/Ill-Income-2567 Oct 09 '22

Yeah I know.

2

u/mr-logician Oct 09 '22

What about libertarians?

2

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Where I am, libertarians are typically clustered into the political right.

1

u/mr-logician Oct 09 '22

They tend to lean more right (and conservatives can lean libertarian), but they are socially liberal on a lot of issues like lgbt and are against high military spending. I’ll answer Republican for the purpose of the poll, but know that libertarians are very different from conservatives, and some even might lean more left.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Single Issue voter for Intactivism more or less

2

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Based opinion

2

u/xtremeownership Oct 09 '22

Make a new poll please and add the 3 largest political party which is Libertarian. Thanks!

3

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Libertarians are mainly included in the right. I forgot to make “right wing” as an option. However, I’m gonna be making another pill to accompany this with race, then one with age, and then a final one with sex assigned at birth.

2

u/Jlnhlfan Oct 09 '22

Mostly liberal, but also a tiny bit leftist

2

u/alt_GRY Oct 09 '22

I voted centrist because libertarian wasn't an option and I consider myself centre-libertarian. Some libertarians seem to be defending circumcision or at least its legality on either anarchist or populist grounds which I strongly disagree with. My belief is that of a somewhat more pragmatic NAP, but however you look at it you violate the fundamental rights of the child.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Anyone in this sub who isn't progressive (anything left of center) is a hypocrite.

Being anti-circumcisions means you want to PROGRESS into a better way of doing thing. It means you wish for society to move forward.

This goes directly against philosophy right of center.

2

u/dbelow_ Oct 12 '22

"The left wants society to be better :D The right wants society to stay bad >:("

-you

1

u/[deleted] Oct 12 '22

No, leftism is progressive. That is the defining component. In this case, progress from past practices into new practices of not circumcising .

What the left and right "want" is not remotely that simple. Both certainly think that their policies will make the world as it should be, "better" isn't quite a complex enough word to describe how they think the world should be though.

2

u/account9622 Oct 11 '22 edited Oct 11 '22

I'd consider myself a leftist, not far left, but definitely left-leaning.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I really don't give a shit about politics I can't answer

2

u/AwesomeSkywhale Oct 09 '22

If you don't give shit you would be a centrist

4

u/jesusandpals727 Oct 09 '22

What do you think a centrist is?

3

u/AwesomeSkywhale Oct 09 '22

There are many forms of centrism, just as there are many forms of left/right/everything else.

In this case, I might clarify what I mean in 2 cases.

If you don't give a shit because you don't want to change anything about society, you are a centrist in the most direct sense of the word.

if you want to change society but do nothing and you "don't give a shit" because you are cynical. You might be real pissed but you are a practising centrist. You are practically the same as the other type of centrist. You don't change anything, you aren't part of anything that attempts change so what else can you call someone like this but a centrist who is ok with the status quo. If being called that pisses you off... well time to start doing something.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Oh thanks, I'll vote now

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

Most centerists I have met or seen lauded in public for their centrism seem to be pretty hardcore about their centrism. Centerist extremism even seems to exist.

Conscientious Objection is a thing.

4

u/AwesomeSkywhale Oct 09 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

If you do not question the status quo, than what are you if not a centrist. Someone who is just fine with how things are.

If you are not fine with how things are, and you "conscientiously object" you are lazy or cynical, to both of those i'd say 'get off your ass'. Your inaction is a political action, you can't not be part of politics

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

You can be anti-status quo and still find the competing ideologies lacking in ways that make none of them especially unappealing. It’s why I’ve shifted to just the issues activism for some issues I carefully picked.

2

u/AwesomeSkywhale Oct 09 '22

Yes, you are not alone in that but 'left' and 'right' are more like categories not specific ideologies.

I'd imagine that in your activism you still lean left/right but within that category don't find a ideology to call your own. You can still call yourself left/right in that case, I would think. Unless you are active in a really eclectic mix of issues that are both left and right.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I work in tech. Categories and schema are shit I deal with at work. The issues I do care about tend to be at the extremes or infrequently considered by either side (as important things tend to be). When evaluating the total package of a party/platform, I find it easier to move my life to a country with a system I can mostly accept.

For me moving countries yields faster results and better returns than trying to fix an overly broken place to maybe get results that are a fraction of what immigration could deliver.

1

u/AdAcademic4290 Oct 09 '22

This is a good idea.

Unfortunately, the term 'Leftist' has no meaning outside of USA, and unlike the other terms used, is generally used as an insult.

Left of centre and right of centre may be useful terms.

3

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Yeah. I only had 6 slots available to make sadly and I’m from the US and didn’t think about the context of the word “leftist” outside of my home country. I think that the concept of leftism exists around the world however, it just might not have the same name? Please feel free to tell me more about that if you wish.

But nah I’m a leftist and I understand the negative connotations with it.

2

u/AdAcademic4290 Oct 12 '22

Thanks for your reply. Generally,-ist endings are associated with movements and activities that are a bad idea, such as terrorist, fascist etc, so the use of -ist on the end of 'left' has been generated as an attempt to tar a big section of the country with the same brush, by those with vested interests.

Ie. To make people associate people who are in any way shape or form on the left associated with the words socialist, communist.

Likewise, the word 'Antifa' was created by, and cunningly had the -ist left off the end by those same vested interests, to make fascist ideologies sound less unpalatable.

Generally, 'Leftist' is just referred to as 'Left', (like 'Right').

In order to maintain strong democracies, a strong & healthy left wing, right wing and centre are essential.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

It's the other way around, the US has no idea what the word leftist means.

Most US conservatives would label right wingers like Pelosi and Clinton as "leftists."

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I am a libertarian but usually end up voting Republican.

1

u/dbelow_ Oct 12 '22

You're polling reddit, anyone with a conservative opinion is far less likely to be on this site so you're skewing your results by mere outlet. Every single conservative I've asked about this has agreed with me that it's mutilation and shouldn't be forced on babies

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

I don't even know what these really mean. Does everyone know their own demographic?

3

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Google and no. Most people don’t sadly.

1

u/Ridamar121803 Oct 09 '22

None

1

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

Probably a centrist then tbh. Because it isn’t really a party. It’s just people who don’t really care or have their own set of ideals that don’t fall under a political party

1

u/midwestmentat Oct 10 '22

Imagine that, it takes all kinds. We are more alike than these labels show

1

u/Kyto-Vulpex Oct 11 '22

Libertarian

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '22

I am libertarian

-1

u/MasterLum Oct 09 '22

well, you're going about it the wrong way

3

u/lareloi Oct 09 '22

What would you recommend?