I was hearing that most of the hate on Kevin Costner’s accent in Prince of Thieves was dog whistle racism against Morgan Freeman because an actual Olde English would’ve been unintelligible. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mel would want to satirize a toxic fandom.
What does that have to do with seeing if the gameplay looks fun? I mean, I suppose they could recommend some YouTube “let’s play” videos instead, but either way, watching someone play the game in a contiguous timeline is probably the best way to see if it looks fun.
Not really, but that record number was set at the height of its release. I was told the number is really high because it took off in China, but it has me wondering why other games haven’t done the same. Does Steam no longer include or receive player counts from China? Are other games just not as big of hits there? I am specifically curious if Palworld has a large number of players in China.
The fact that some people genuinely think there’s any kind of leftist representation in the US or that its system would ever even allow that to happen is funny
I’m just saying that the answer is centred on American politics. The definition of right is Republicans and left the Democrats doesn’t apply anywhere else.
Just be aware that that answer is very over-simplifying things. “Left” and “right” are supposed to signify political ideas, not certain parties or politicians. You could say that Biden is to the “left” of Trump, but most people who would call themselves “left-wing” would consider Biden a “centrist” (between left and right) at best, maybe even skewing right-wing.
Typical left-wing ideals would be working towards freedom and equality for everyone by solidarity and cooperation, whereas right-wing ideas usually focus around preserving your own privileges by suppressing whomever you consider “outsiders” or “inferiors”.
Right and left are an illusion produced by the people who are sucking up the profits of our labour to pit us against each other.
Especially the US two party system seems to be a racket that lets you choose between conservative corpo shills and science denying fascists. All to extract the maximum amount of money from all people involved.
Words to live by, OP, “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”
Fascism, a far right wing ideology, is often described as “capitalism in decline,” and is what happens when capitalism desperately clings to any hope of maintaining itself, normally by calling itself back to some mythologized, fictional version of a perceived golden age.
Its also worth noting that we use the terms left and right to described to describe relative position within the overton window (the narrow stretch of “acceptable” politics within a given society) of our current politics, as in, biden is left Bush is right, et cetera, but in a larger view of the political spectrum both the democrats and republicans are right wing parties. There isn’t an objective defintion of who is left/right, but for a lot of people, the dividing line is capitalism itself. If you support capitalism, you’re right wing, if you’re a socialist, communist, or anarchist, you’re a left winger. If, by some miracle, capitalism were to die out tomorrow and every country was some flavor of socialist the dividing line would change to some new metric, and x would be left while y would right. It’s a short hand expression not a hard and fast rule.
The problem is not that the left is an illusion and more that there just is no left wing party in the US.
Like you said there is a right wing party in line with most conservative parties in Europe and there is a protofascist party in line with Putin, American Oligarchy and religious extremism.
That doesn’t mean that an actual leftist movement or party can’t possibly exist or is a mere illusion.
The political system in the US is just purposefully designed not to allow a successful party on the left.
Elections are decided in big parts with money, which inherently favours those with money (and corporations are people in the US for some fucked up reason).
This is by design and not something that is natural or automatic.
I guess our positions are not that different, I just wanted to add some nuance.
I agree. We mean pretty much the same. I‘m just saying it different.
In my opinion the thought of cleaning your own doorstep before meddling in foreign affairs (one argument of the actual conservatives in opposition to fascists) actually makes a lot of sense to me.
The same goes for treating all people (and even animals, and plants to a degree) the same regardless of anything that doesnt harm others is not an idea of the „radical left“ imo but the opposite is a pure fascist idea and not conservative at all.
The ideas of what conservative or progressive mean are open to interpretation and using it the way modern populists (others call them politicians) do is just to help them get or stay in power.
Actually, representative democracy is a problem in that regard. We should go back to direct democracy in a lot of topics. Go back to the normal person educating themselves in national and local issues instead of voting for „the guy“ because they lie anyway.
That means making time for this education instead of wageslaving 8-16 hrs a day for all mature people on the household. Living with a small family on one full time income is the way it has to be in my opinion. Which partner goes to work or if both so half a day is inconsequential to me.
Fun Fact: The emergence of the “left” / “right” distinction in the political sense is attributed to the original seating arrangement at the Constituante, the constituent national assembly of 1789 in France.
EDIT: I hate talking about political stuff. Never a correct answer and every word is scrutinized. I hate it.
Politically Right: “Freedom for everyone at all cost”
Lmmfao...
They don't give a shit about freedom for anyone but themselves (and especially not that of people who aren't white, Christian, cis, straight and abled), their actual motives are having as much power and money as possible.
That doesn’t make sense. There are lots of right-wingers who are not in the demographics you listed (the biggest political party in the world to take one example)
You are right about most points, but the right is not and never was about freedom, but about cementing a hierarchical order in society.
It used used to be about Aristocrats in France.
Today it is about keeping the rich in power and by extension to rile poor people against even poorer people (often immigrants).
If you look at politics through that lense so many more things start to make sense.
Old money hates new money.
Right wing middle class people hate poor people.
Right wing poor people hate immigrants.
They want to look down on somebody.
Bro, the left and right are originally French, not American, and they’re applied worldwide throughout various systems.
Long story short, in the original National Assembly in 1789, people with similar opinions ended up befriending each-other and sitting nearby during the session, so at one point you had all those who thought the revolution ought to go further (give more rights to more people, decrease the power of the king or outright depose him, etc…) sitting on the left, and all those who thought the revolution had gone to far already and ought to slow down sitting on the right.
Of course, by this metric, the very concept of a republic is far left, but the idea is that no matter what system you’re in, once it’s established enough, wanting to maintain the status quo is being a centrist, wanting change that puts more power in the hands of common people is left wing, and opposing such changes or wanting to undo them to “restore order”, often concentrating power in fewer hands, is right wing.
This “power” I speak of was at the beginning just political power, but through the 19th century, the focus shifted towards economic power. Therefore, since the late 19th century, a right wing policy a policy that favors the rich, and a left wing policy one that places restrictions on the rich and welfare policy for the poor to decrease inequality. This is why liberals were initially left wing, but neoliberalism is now mostly regarded as a wing ideology. These are policies that want a weaker state, but more rights/powers for rich individuals.
I am very surprised that there is only one legitimate reference to the original coining of these terms from the beginning of the French Revolution so far in this thread asking what these terms mean.
It’s not exactly relevant to a modern conversation, even if the history does highlight the Overton Window and how being the “left” or “right” is still different from being a “leftist” or a “right winger” as left or right wing is usually relative to local politics and “leftist” vs “right winger” refers to broad ideologies.
lemmy.ml
Oldest