Why do you assume that liberals just want to maintain the status quo, when actually most of us want change but not the radical economy breaking change the left seem to want?
I think we understand importantly that nothing gets fixed if the economy isn’t healthy. The left view the economy very differently.
Why do you assume that liberals just want to maintain the status quo
Lived experience.
And like… Talking to liberals? Having conversations with people. Where whenever we discuss politics, any systemic change is always framed as too radical.
Think about climate change. Think about how many liberals view this as an issue where the solution is… More people buying electric cars. Rather than rethinking cities and infrastructure to allow for more pedestrians, bicycles, and public transport. Or where instead of regulating industries causing the most damage, the solutions is… To rely on consumers, who are already overwhelmed by information in advertising and often low on disposable income, to “make better purchasing decisions” to make the companies change by voting with their wallets. Where the fault for climate change isn’t the fact that our economies incentivise the destruction of the environment, but that people just aren’t recycling enough.
The system is always found faultless, it’s always the individual to blame. Any actual systemic solution is dismissed, precisely because changing the systems we live under is considered radical.
Some liberals might, ostensibly, say they want things to change for the better. But in practice, they tend to oppose any measure to actually achieve that change.
I’m not going to talk about public transport because it ostensibly is an incredibly localised issue.
I will say that most liberals are definitely not opposed to measures to combat climate change, it’s just that those measures need to be sensible and realistic and most importantly costed.
I also have never met liberals that are opposed to regulation of fossil fuel industries, but again the measures need to be sensible as the world economy is still reliant on oil and gas.
Causing giant economic crashes is the absolute worst thing you can do to combat climate change. Money, whether you like it or not, rules the world and dictates what we can do. Good intentions can have bad outcomes, this is absolutely what many don’t understand.
I will say that most liberals are definitely not opposed to measures to combat climate change, it’s just that those measures need to be sensible and realistic and most importantly costed.
Please actually read what I’m writing. Because this is fully consistent with what I’m describing.
Liberals often support change in abstract, they like the goals. But then oppose any measures to accomplish it because those measures are not “sensible” to them.
Good intentions can have bad outcomes, this is absolutely what many don’t understand.
Stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. We don’t think you’re correct, that doesn’t mean that we don’t understand.
Oh piss right off. You ignore what I write and started ranting at me about entirely unrelated nonsense. And this entire conversation has been weirdly accusatory. I engaged with you honestly, but you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about leftists.
Which of course tracks 100% with my previous experience.
You stated it with the ad hominem attacks and the nastiness, just because of what you assumed I believed rather than actually what I believe.
This is what I mean, discourse is dead. I got dog piled for saying I’m less leftist than when I was younger, which is a cardinal sin in threads like this. Because people see things in black and white they think you’re basically Trump if you say something like that.
Why do you assume that liberals just want to maintain the status quo, when actually most of us want change but not the radical economy breaking change the left seem to want?
I think we understand importantly that nothing gets fixed if the economy isn’t healthy. The left view the economy very differently.
Lived experience.
And like… Talking to liberals? Having conversations with people. Where whenever we discuss politics, any systemic change is always framed as too radical.
Think about climate change. Think about how many liberals view this as an issue where the solution is… More people buying electric cars. Rather than rethinking cities and infrastructure to allow for more pedestrians, bicycles, and public transport. Or where instead of regulating industries causing the most damage, the solutions is… To rely on consumers, who are already overwhelmed by information in advertising and often low on disposable income, to “make better purchasing decisions” to make the companies change by voting with their wallets. Where the fault for climate change isn’t the fact that our economies incentivise the destruction of the environment, but that people just aren’t recycling enough.
The system is always found faultless, it’s always the individual to blame. Any actual systemic solution is dismissed, precisely because changing the systems we live under is considered radical.
Some liberals might, ostensibly, say they want things to change for the better. But in practice, they tend to oppose any measure to actually achieve that change.
I’m not going to talk about public transport because it ostensibly is an incredibly localised issue.
I will say that most liberals are definitely not opposed to measures to combat climate change, it’s just that those measures need to be sensible and realistic and most importantly costed.
I also have never met liberals that are opposed to regulation of fossil fuel industries, but again the measures need to be sensible as the world economy is still reliant on oil and gas.
Causing giant economic crashes is the absolute worst thing you can do to combat climate change. Money, whether you like it or not, rules the world and dictates what we can do. Good intentions can have bad outcomes, this is absolutely what many don’t understand.
Please actually read what I’m writing. Because this is fully consistent with what I’m describing.
Liberals often support change in abstract, they like the goals. But then oppose any measures to accomplish it because those measures are not “sensible” to them.
Stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. We don’t think you’re correct, that doesn’t mean that we don’t understand.
Y’all are always so condescending.
Leftists are the most condescending and smug people around.
They disparage the proletariat as being brainwashed and infantilise them rather than just accepting the fact people think they’re dicks.
Whenever you respond to them they just tell you to read theory or gish gallop.
They oversimplify solutions. Left populism is absolutely dangerous to young people in this political climate.
Many are more concerned with out virtuing each other rather than constructing workable movements for change that being people along with them.
Good chat. Bye now.
Step outside of your echo chambers once in a while mate.
Oh piss right off. You ignore what I write and started ranting at me about entirely unrelated nonsense. And this entire conversation has been weirdly accusatory. I engaged with you honestly, but you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about leftists.
Which of course tracks 100% with my previous experience.
Insufferable, self-aggrandizing tool.
You stated it with the ad hominem attacks and the nastiness, just because of what you assumed I believed rather than actually what I believe.
This is what I mean, discourse is dead. I got dog piled for saying I’m less leftist than when I was younger, which is a cardinal sin in threads like this. Because people see things in black and white they think you’re basically Trump if you say something like that.
He doesn’t assume that, and said the exact opposite.
How has he said the exact opposite? Enlighten me.
Edit: he didn’t, for all the reasonable people who happen to be reading.