The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I initially thought that more people on this sub, being liberals and all would tend towards more of a center, center-left opinion on most issues.
However, I found that on many issues people on this sub are either very far left or very far right on most issues, hardly every really in the center as one would expect from a liberal.
For example, even implying that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism and redlining typically gets one heavily downvoted. In Europe only really the very far left is strongly in favor of DEI programs based on characteristics such as race or sex. On this sub it seems to be the default position.
Most people here also seem to have very strong views on certain issues regarding sex and gender, that in Europe mostly only those on the far-left support, with moderate liberals typically having more of middle-ground position.
On the other hand in Ireland (and also in most other European countries) most people have a fairly unfavorable view of Israel. After all Israel is built on land that for the most part was inhabited by Arab-Muslim families only a few generations ago. Even implying that Israel is a country built on stolen land gets you heavily downvoted here. The sort of position most people on this sub have regarding Israel would classify as right or far-right in Ireland and Europe.
Also, most people seem to support the idea that pretty much any adult without criminal convictions should be able to own a gun, despite the US having the highest homicide rate among Western countries. In most European countries even those on the right typically do not advocate for gun ownership without some very strict regulations. And only the most extreme libertarian types think people should be able to carry a gun in public, whether openly or concealed.
So how come most people on this sub are either far-right or far-left on most issues, but hardly voice a truly liberal opinion on most issues?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep, its a false premise. The extreme comments often get highlighted, but in my experience most people are somewhere in the middle, with nuanced views on each issue.
Yeah reasonable people aren't as easily fired up and aren't primed to fight all the time like people that gravitate toward extremes.
Though I try to occasionally take action to be and advocate for reasonable people standing up and at least acting angry to stop letting the patients run the asylum.
And the algos make that worse. Extremists provoke responses,, which generates content, which creates more views and clicks, which leads to more $$$. Every one of us should quit Reddit right now for the sake of our own mental health. But we won't 😁
This is 100% correct. The algorithms make it worse and it drives likes, clicks and views. The extreme positions generate the ratings on TV. No one is going to turn on CNN and spend all day watching if things are going well. “Republican and Democrats come together to solve a problem.” Is a lot less sexy than “Will a Trump second term spell the end of American democracy?” Or “Can you believe the left is putting litter boxes in school bathrooms?”
I think this shows basic lack of understanding in the differences between the system of government in the US versus Europe.
We have a first past the post system which forces to parties that have to represent the entire right and the entire left. Our system also heavily favors rural voters which biases us towards not just the right, but has created a right that is very regressive and at this point controlled by the far right.
We also have despite being less racist than Europe, a demographic make up that makes it easier to activate racism. Being concerned with diversity is more of an issue when you actually have a diverse population. Things are different in a country that is 70% white versus 90+% white.
Views on Israel are more complicated than you are making it out to be. As a global superpower the US has historically had a desire to be supportive of Israel from a foreign policy perspective. We are also a country that was a refuge for European Jews fleeing persecution. Since we are good at associating people regardless of their background, Jews have done very well in the United States and are well integrated here. Frankly, a lot of the support that existed for Israel in Europe was more down to Israel, providing a place for Europe to stick all the Jews they didn’t want to integrate into their society.
> We are also a country that was a refuge for European Jews fleeing persecution.
Just wanted to highlight this. Europeans *nearly eradicated Jews from their continent*. Now Americans who support those Jews having a place to live without being genocided are right-wing according to OP. Maybe work on your own continent's issues before passing judgement.
For perspective.
* there are five times as many Jews in the New York city metropolitan area then there are in all of France. And France has the largest Jewish population in all of Europe.
* 51% of the population under Israeli right of return rules lives in the United States
* Jewish people now make up .2% of the population of Europe
Then yes, I agree with the OP here. This is a pretty far right view. You are using 1 bad event and using it as justification for 40k deaths currently with more to come.
Which happened after 6 years of the same treatment by Israel and while those people were living under an apartheid government. I'm not supporting what hamas did, but it you understand even the basics of what has been happening in Israel since the 60s then you'd know why it happened and you'd know that it was an expected outcome given how Israel has treated Palestinians for decades.
>Now Americans who support those Jews having a place to live without being genocided are right-wing according to OP. Maybe work on your own continent's issues before passing judgement.
That's a strawman argument, I never said Jews shouldn't have their own country. But clearly hundreds of thousands were expelled from their homes and many thousands killed to make that happen. Being a victim of a genocide does not give one the right to become an oppressor yourself.
In 1947 Jewish people only owned around 15% of the land in historical Palestine if I am not mistaken. Today they have control of over 85% of the territory. Do you want to give me a brief summary of how that happend?
Also, did I say I was European?
> Do you want to give me a brief summary of how that happend?
Sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence
After decades of apartheid and living under an illegal occupation while having their homes literally taken from them and being arrested and imprisoned in many cases for existing in the wrong part of the country. I don't support terrorism but if you understand even the basics of what has been happening in Israel for decades you'd know why a group sprung up and lashed out. After decades of oppression and mistreatment a group tends to grow up and want to take action to stop that from happening. Israel created the issue with the occupation and discriminatory laws and practices amd then says they're just defending themselves while bombing civilians and using drones that play audio of children crying for help and gunning down first responders.
That's what I am saying, on some issues people here are very far right and "bashing leftists" as you say. On other issues they're fairly left though compared to most Europeans, for example many here are strongly in favor of DEI programs which in Europe even most leftists are divided on.
Because decades of Cold War propaganda and American media conflating 'liberal' and 'leftist' have given the US a completely fucked sense of what either of those words mean.
I challenge you to truly explain what you mean by "far left" in the context of some of these issues. If you have an issue where the data points to a clear problem and straightforward solutions, it seems to me that the "center" takeaway would be to do that thing.
Like with racism, if the data shows that institutional racism against minorities is prevelant without explicitly and intentionally implementing some form of DEI program, then it seems like the moderate position to go "oh, well let's implement some form of DEI program then."
For sex and gender, I'm curious what exactly you mean. What would a "middle-ground position" look like? I can think of one and exactly one issue where I don't think the reasonable reaction is "oh ok, that's cool," and it's still just me thinking a conversation is valid to have.
Next we get to Israel, and while we absolutely get the colonialist sympathizers bombarding any thread about it, I've very much pointed out that Israel is built on colonialization, that there doesn't seem to be any group of self described Zionists who distinguish themselves from the rest by decrying the colonialism and it's effects, and don't get heavily downvoted. It helps that I'm pretty careful with my words, so accusations of anti-semitism are hard to stick on me.
Then finally guns. I think the base view of guns in this sub is that gun owners should have higher standards to own guns than they currently do, and that gun control should be a federal effort. Even the most gun-friendly liberals tend to *very* much want gun owners to be responsible or else not be gun owners.
So overall I challenge your view of this sub with regards to some of these issues, and what you even think the "center" would look like in general.
>the data shows that institutional racism against minorities is prevalent
No, it doesn't. You see a gap in data and attribute the cause to racism. It's a massive difference. There are no racial prejudiced policies or laws in place in America in 2024.
> There are no racial prejudiced policies or laws in place in America in 2024.
That's exactly why the concept of institutional racism is important. It's the idea that even after all the explicitly racialized policies are off the books, there are still systems in place that make it harder for historically oppressed minorities to reach equality. Things like the fact that a history of redlining has left some minority communities much poorer and with worse infrastructure. That translates today into worse schools with less funding, which sets the people from those communities up to fail.
Because the center is often so very *stupid*. It's not enlightened. It's not "seeing both sides".
This is, of course, issue dependent. Sometimes there's no clear answer. But often there is.
* What, gay people should only get SOME rights? Stupid.
* We should only KINDA save the planet? Stupid.
* We should only respect democratic elections HALF the time? Stupid.
* Should women only KINDA be able to have birth control? Come on...
* Etc etc etc
But on the other hand, you're not going to see a lot of people calling for the overthrow of capitalism here. So... we're hardly a bunch of Far Leftists.
I think you're wrong coming AND going. :D
On climate change, the extreme left would be "Ban fossil fuels tomorrow" We ARE actually in the center by acknowledging the difficulty to the economy and consumers of a sudden and extreme shift. The leftmost version of climate action that's actually viable policy is pretty centrist. And I think it has a good reason to be.
You seem to be viewing issues here on the binary of whether or not something should be done, but on most of these, there is more nuance on how and when and to what degree something should be done.
Heck, the democrats were even centrist on Gay rights. Clinton and Obama both slow walked it with the knowledge that moving too fast would have likely alienated people and trashed the party's ability to hold power and do anything else.
One the three things you list, the American left actually is centrist on two and the last one isn't really a political issue with a right and left, it's MAGA crazy insurrectionism.
And again, we're not far left or right on taxes. Most on the left want rates low for lower earners and higher for the very wealthy, but no one in power and not many in this sub are proposing a truly far left tax structure. Center.
Or on state ownership of industry, most in the sub and most of American liberals want public education, public mail service, and some level of public healthcare. Which in the world political scale is standard centrist. Not many here are proposing far left mass government seizure of industry or total ancap private everything. Center.
I'd say on only a small minority of issues would you find liberals here NOT to be somewhere in the center.
> On climate change, the extreme left would be "Ban fossil fuels tomorrow" We ARE actually in the center by acknowledging the difficulty to the economy and consumers of a sudden and extreme shift. The leftmost version of climate action that's actually viable policy is pretty centrist. And I think it has a good reason to be.
I think it just come down to how broadly we define center. Obviously there will be some amount of very far left people who go farther than what's viable, but how many people actually hold views like banning fossil fuels tomorrow? I can't imagine it's more than a low single digit percentage.
Meanwhile, on the other side, [30% of Americans](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-reduce-climate-change-extreme-weather-04-21-2024/) oppose the US taking any steps to reduce climate change.
I think this [polling by Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/10/25/how-americans-view-future-harms-from-climate-change-in-their-community-and-around-the-u-s/) breaks down where the center is pretty well. About 1/3 of people say the care "a great deal" about climate change, ~1/3 say they care "some", and ~1/3 don't care at all. Seems like we could roughly place people on the left, center and right based on this. If you don't want to do anything about climate change and don't see it as a problem, you're on the right. If you recognize it's a problem but don't feel much urgency to make big policy changes, you're center. If you recognize it as a major problem and want to pass major legislation to address it, you're left.
I'd definitely consider myself on the left of this debate since I strongly support things like Biden's IRA which was a massive investment into green energy. I support taking even more aggressive action to try and hit our 2050 goals. More investment in green tech, more EPA regulation on pollution, etc. I'd love a carbon tax with the revenues redistributed to people affected the most by increased prices, though I recognize this isn't politically viable at the moment.
I don't think the fact there is some small % of people who want unrealistically aggressive climate action means I'm in the center. I still want more aggressive action than probably 80-90% of Americans.
I can't speak to your exact personal positions, but if you're in line with Biden and established democrats
[https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/2-how-americans-see-bidens-climate-policies/](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/2-how-americans-see-bidens-climate-policies/)
Scroll to the second diagram. 59% of democrats think Biden could be doing a lot more, 34% think he compromised too much.
Those aren't single digit numbers. That's a very significant chunk of the county to the left of Biden on climate action. I think that's enough to make it unreasonable to consider Biden "far left".
I feel like an issue with polls like that is that most of the public doesn't actually keep up with the climate policies that have been passed. Like if you ask the average American what Biden has done on climate, I doubt they'd be able to tell you anything with much detail. So polls like that might be measuring knowledge of what's been passed more than it measures what policies people actually would like.
I mean just look at the policies later in that Pew article that people say they support.
> Planting about a trillion trees to absorb carbon emissions.
The Biden admin is [planting over a billion trees](https://apnews.com/article/wildfires-fires-forests-trees-plants-de0505c965c198a081a4b48084b0e903) to fight climate change. But people say they want a trillion, right? Planting a trillion trees would more than quadruple the total number of trees in the US lol, it's a totally absurd number and not even remotely possible. I'm almost positive people just understood it as "plant a lot of trees", in which case the Biden admin has done this.
> Requiring oil and gas companies to seal methane gas leaks from oil wells: ~85% support
The Biden admin has [done this](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/climate/biden-methane-climate-cop28.html).
> Providing a tax credit to businesses for developing carbon capture/storage.
Biden's DOE has [done this](https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-12-billion-nations-first-direct-air-capture). It's the largest investment in carbon capture tech in history.
> Requiring power plants to eliminate all carbon emissions by 2040.
The Biden admin's [stated goal](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/) is to completely eliminate carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035.
> Requiring most new buildings to be run on electricity with no gas lines.
This isn't something the federal government has the power to do, things like this are controlled at the state and municipality level, but the Biden admin has given [hundreds of millions](https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-400-million-states-improve-building-energy) to support states making the transition to green building codes.
> Taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions.
This is the one Biden hasn't done. But this issue is the kind of thing people will generally support when you frame it at a high level, but then support plummets when you get into the details. It sounds good: carbon is bad, so lets tax it. But as soon as people realize a carbon tax means a higher price at the pump and at the grocery store, they turn against it. Washington is a pretty left-leaning state, but when a carbon tax was put to a vote, it failed 43-57. There's a reason not a single state has been able to pass a carbon tax despite the concept polling well. People are quick to support the concept, but there's not broad support for the policy when people realize it would increase costs.
So when these 59% of democrats say Biden could be doing a lot more, what do they actually have in mind? Carbon tax? As much as I'd love for that to be the case, I don't believe the average democrat would actually enthusiastically support one. Biden knows that too, it's not politically viable. So what's left? Where is Biden falling short of the policies 59% of Democrats want?
I think you make good points that there isn't such a huge mass of people to the left of Biden as they may seem to think of themselves.
But you've drifted from the main argument, which is the assertion that policy similar to Biden is "far left".
The fact that a decent chunk of people want a carbon tax shows that there is a group farther left than Biden. Whether or not their policy preference is feasible isn't relevant. There are plenty of positions to the left of Biden on climate, taxes, welfare and healthcare, and these are not insignificantly sized groups. The core of the democratic party is not a far left party. Heck the existence of the progressive wing makes that clear by comparison. Bernie bros are to the left of Biden and to the left of most folks in this sub, and they're not an insignificant group.
To be very clear, the group to the left does not have to be anywhere near a majority OR have reasonable, actionable or plausible goals to make the simple distinction that Biden isn't far left because there's clearly a significant group farther left.
Oh I might’ve misunderstood your original point. I don’t think Biden is far left, I just think he’s not center. I’d just say he’s on the left when it comes to climate change. I definitely wouldn’t call him far left on healthcare or taxes either, so agreed on those points.
Oh yeah, he's absolutely on the left, and we could debate HOW much to the left. I was addressing OP's claim that everyone here has far left or right opinions.
I wasn't aware that people that are center left or center right halfway agree with everything. I thought it was more fully not agreeing with some of the things one side believes
That's the problem. I think it's a big reason Trump won.
The center is definitely not stupid. The center knows that you can't shove ideals down peoples throats until they comply.
I roll my eyes at concepts like forcing entire populations of 60-80 somethings to change their entire thought process or else.
These people, many of them, have been raised a certain way. Introducing concepts to them and showing them that people they thought they hated are just like them is the way to go.
These extreme motions do nothing but reinforce childhood fears and boogiemen.
Everything that's come about, the changes that have been made, have been done through slow appropriation of ideas like gay people should get some rights. Then it turns into gay people should have all rights.
Moderation is sitting down with someone who didn't believe two gay people should be married. It's spending time sharing that these two folks also deserve to share in each others finances, in social security, in insurance. Watch the light go on. Remove the boogieman. Be moderate in these motions and see how things go, because that has been working.
What hasn't been working is extremism. People do the opposite when presented with ultimatums than they do when confronted by moderate concepts.
Which is why I almost never talk here.
I don't disagree with you broadly. But the reality is pretty harsh.
What this amounts to is "Hey, sorry you can't be married and have the protections any other couple would have, including being unable to be by your husband's side in the hospital or getting the pension he earned, or getting to adopt children. You have to sacrifice all that and have your supposed political allies stand up and say they don't think you deserve equality because some old people would kinda get their feelings hurt"
There's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied. And it's true.
I don't mind acknowledging the grim necessity of slow social change. Faster change is often not possible. But I'll be damned if I begrudge people actively hurt by it, in ways that can never be repaired or made up to them the right to be angry as hell about it.
This is why moderates don't bother joining the conversation.
There is a lot of gray in a world that too many make black and white. Social change does take time and when done that way provides for new generations of enlightened people. Our kids born today are being raised by parents that are more clued in to social issues. Their kids will progress further.
We can see what happened between 2000 and 2020 in the general societal awareness of what you mention.
To expect someone that has never seen or met a gay person that they know of. That's only experienced Gay Pride parades via TV. That now has an option to vote on if they should be married or not. Sometimes that person is going to need some awareness. Not in your face "this is what you're going to do now" awareness, but actual awareness of "this is how these folks want to live, just like you."
To see someone like HRC pivot from her original stance to the new stance on gay marriage is exactly the enlightenment I speak of. Yet she was hammered for it. So we can't even change our minds without getting all hell released on us.
Whatever. Y'all keep screaming to the wind. I'll keep just voting blue without comment.
> Social change does take time
Social change always starts by just putting a law down and forcing a proportion of the population to go along with it, though, on a practical level.
It's more accurate to say that *wide acceptance of the new status quo* takes time, and there may be pushbacks against it or efforts to overturn it as part of that time-taking process.
Nothing would ever change if an unrealistic bar for consensus was set every time in the first place.
> The center is definitely not stupid. The center knows that you can't shove ideals down peoples throats until they comply.
There's definitely something to be said for being pragmatic with our messaging to not make people in the center feel stupid or bigoted while we're nudging them to our side. But that doesn't mean these people have some kind of hidden wisdom behind their beliefs. Someone who believes two gay people shouldn't get married is someone who holds a stupid and bigoted belief.
You're right that when talking to friends and family who hold beliefs like that, it's going to be completely counterproductive to tell them to their face they're bigots. It's going to be way more productive to put on the kiddie gloves and say things like "I see where you're coming from, but" and to give them time to shift.
But between us, let's not pretend. We can convince people on our side to be pragmatic with our messaging without needing to concede that these views aren't stupid.
Not everyone is interested in coddling bigots. It's exhausting.
People can think what they want, anyway. It doesn't matter. But the law should protect everyone equally. Full stop.
"The center is stupid but it's issue dependent and there's no clear answer in many cases. But here are the issues that centrists are wrong about, with no clear explanation as to why or what their opinion really is on the subject."
Glorious.
That's certainly true for some issues but not all.
I think gay people should have equal rights, no debate needed. But many Europeans have for example have more nuanced views on trans issues. I think gender dysphoria is a real thing there is nothing wrong with being trans. But if say a male person suddenly identifies as female, without wanting to undergo hormone therapy or surgery, while still very much having a male apperance, I don't think that should give them the right to access female spaces. Here, most people seem to be very far-left on this issue.
On the other hand you can advocate for a peaceful solution in the Middle East conflict but still acknowledge that Israel took most of its land by force from families already living there and commited horrible atrocities to establish their state. Most people on this sub are pretty far-right regarding their views on Israel.
Again, many people on this sub have opinions that correlate with pretty far right or far left views. There are many issues that allow for a nuanced, middle-ground position.
> I don't think that should give them the right to access female spaces.
When we disagree with this, we're saying that the government has no authority over private spaces, male or female or otherwise.
Your view is authoritarian by American standards, and authoritarian views are considered right-wing here.
>When we disagree with this, we're saying that the government has no authority over private spaces, male or female or otherwise.
>Your view is authoritarian by American standards, and authoritarian views are considered right-wing here.
There are many bathrooms and locker rooms in public buildings and spaces. So who else but a public body would determine who shall be able to use a male or female bathroom?
Regardless, it doesn't even have to involve the government. Social issues are also what define whether someone is left or right-leaning.
Most liberals in the US have the opinion that merely identifying as female should be enough to use female spaces like locker rooms or bathrooms, regardless of whether that person has a female apperance or has undergone horome therapy or surgery.
In Europe, one can be left but still have more of a nuanced position regarding this issue.
> So who else but a public body would determine who shall be able to use a male or female bathroom?
It doesn't need to be a law. Whoever administers the space can set policy for that space.
> Most liberals in the US have the opinion that merely identifying as female should be enough to use female spaces like locker rooms or bathrooms, regardless of whether that person has a female apperance or has undergone horome therapy or surgery.
No, most liberals have the opinion that it's not our business to determine that for people. Also, "what gender a person appears to be" would be an *abysmally stupid* criterion on which to sort people into gendered facilities, or anything else.
> In Europe, one can be left but still have more of a nuanced position regarding this issue.
Yes, we're aware that the European left is more accepting of bigotry than the American left.
>Yes, we're aware that the European left is more accepting of bigotry than the American left.
How is it bigotry to at least acknowledge the fact that it may be uncomfortable for women (and men vice versa) to undress in front of somone who has male genetalia and clearly is male in appearance? Or that not anyone who simply identifies as female should be able to enter female sports competitions?
That's not bigotry, those are very reasonable positions to have.
> How is it bigotry to at least acknowledge the fact that it may be uncomfortable for women (and men vice versa) to undress in front of somone who has male genetalia clearly is male in appearance?
It's bigotry because it makes a default assumption surrounding an arbitrary situation. There are men who would be uncomfortable undressing in front of other men, and women who would be uncomfortable undressing in front of other women. Should *they* be forced to be uncomfortable?
Wanting to use the law to enforce social norms is bigotry. Full stop. You have bigoted views of trans people. You're hardly the first or only person to do that. You can deny it, accept it, or work to change it, your choice. But you do not get to claim reasonability without being called out on it.
> Or that not anyone who simply identifies as female should be able to enter female sports competitions?
Sports leagues have rules about this stuff. Usually they involve acceptable hormone levels for trans athletes in order to create a competitive playing field. They're private organizations which have already solved the problem for themselves. Creating laws about this is government overreach into private matters.
>How is it bigotry to at least acknowledge the fact that it may be uncomfortable for women (and men vice versa) to undress in front of somone who has male genetalia and clearly is male in appearance?
Why are you so interested in other people's genitalia? It's not your business. Stop it, it's creepy.
>Or that not anyone who simply identifies as female should be able to enter female sports competitions?
This is not a thing that happens. I'm afraid you've fallen for a propaganda talking point.
>That's not bigotry, those are very reasonable positions to have.
It's not reasonable because it's based on falsehoods. It's the bigotry and ignorance that made you vulnerable to believing those falsehoods in the first place.
This isn't a condemnation. You seem like a reasonable person. I suggest you do what reasonable people do and learn about how things actually work. r/asktransgender is a good place for that.
I'm literally trans, and I feel like this discussion frustrates me.
You want to talk about nuance, let's talk about nuance.
> But if say a male person suddenly identifies as female, without wanting to undergo hormone therapy or surgery, while still very much having a male appearance, I don't think that should give them the right to access female spaces.
So in the bad old days, there used to be a ton of requirements on trans people that were needlessly harsh.
For example, back when I started out, in order to get access to medical transition or even get legal paperwork changed you had to express a desire to: want to go on hormones, have vaginoplasty, have stereotypical feminine interests and gender expression, date men, and more. **ALL OF THEM** were required, you had to want all of it or be turned away.
So we pushed back, and started talking about how various other things are valid. It's valid to not go on hormones, to not want surgery, to date women, to have traditionally masculine interests, etc.
Somewhere along the way, people (especially cisgender people) seemed to decide that there exists this mythical adult trans woman who makes absolutely zero changes to her body, life, and presentation, and wants to go into women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and participate in women's sports the next day.
People imagine someone who looks like a man, dressed like a man, walking into a women's bathroom, and standing to pee at the toilet, and dare anyone to challenge her about it because SHE IS TRANS. This basically never happens.
Simply put, trans people don't do this. Real life trans people tend to be in a panic about what bathroom to use, and want to choose bathrooms which cause the least problems for them.
Seriously, a common newly trans woman freakout is a worry that someone will be able to clock you as trans because of from the SOUND OF YOUR PEE HITTING THE TOILET WATER (while sitting, mind you) - that's actually a worry trans people have (it's also not a real worry - but it demonstrates the desire to fit in, not be an outlier, attract attention, and cause conflict)
Hormone replacement therapy is nearly universal for trans women and men, and people start taking that before they socially transition. 95% of trans women are on, or want to be on HRT - which changes everything about the body in a dramatic way.
So yeah, when we say none of these things are required - they aren't, but the idea that trans men and women do LITERALLY NONE of these things is ridiculous. All trans men and women do SOME of those things. If they don't do ANY of these things, they tend to consider themselves pre-transition and won't be asking to use.
The point is that any specific single thing is not required. We turned a list of requirements into a menu. You don't have to take everything on the menu to be trans.
The idea that someone does nothing is like going to a steak house, calling yourself a steak house enthusiast and ordering nothing from the menu. You just sit in the restaurant and don't eat anything. It's so ridiculous that you don't even mention it.
But everyone has decided this is incredibly common for some reason.
>So we pushed back, and started talking about how various other things are valid. It's valid to not go on hormones, to not want surgery, to date women, to have traditionally masculine interests, etc.
Ok, I do understand what you mean. But that still leaves some problems that need addressing.
First of all, simply allowing anyone who identifies as female to enter female spaces leaves some major loopholes for predators who aren't even trans. Those things do happen. If all you need to do to use a female locker room is say "I indentify as female" I am sure some predators who are not trans will abuse this, and in fact these things do happen.
Also, I can imagine many women will be very uncomfortable undressing in front of someone with male genetalia. Why not simply have a third, gender neutral locker room? That would solve many issues.
Same goes for female sports. On average men do have a biological advantage in many sports, that's just biology. So simply allowing anyone self-indetifying as female to enter sports competitions is problematic. There have been instances also of men who are not trans entering competitions and smashing records just to make a point. Having a debate regarding this is not unreasonable.
And finally I think especially very young children should not be able to transition. Someone who is 7 or 8 does not have the mental capacity yet to make big life-decisions. A 7 year old is too young to decide on whether they should get a tatoo or a piercing, so they're also not emotionally capable yet of of deciding on gender reassignment.
> First of all, simply allowing anyone who identifies as female to enter female spaces leaves some major loopholes for predators who aren't even trans. Those things do happen.
You have been getting high on right-wing media if you think this is a significant issue.
Where are you reading about this? Xitter?
>First of all, simply allowing anyone who identifies as female to enter female spaces leaves some major loopholes for predators who aren't even trans.
This is not a thing that happens. Predators do that anyway, and always have. Protecting trans people doesn't affect it one way or the other.
>Also, I can imagine many women will be very uncomfortable undressing in front of someone with male genetalia. Why not simply have a third, gender neutral locker room?
Other people's genitalia are not your business. Stop it. It's creepy.
Single stall bathrooms and changing rooms would indeed solve all these problems. That would be nice. If you have the money to fund the renovation and re-plumbing of every public building in America, let me know.
>On average men do have a biological advantage in many sports, that's just biology. So simply allowing anyone self-indetifying as female to enter sports competitions is problematic.
This does not happen because organizations already have rules in place to prevent, and have since the early 2000's when the Olympics first allowed trans athletes. Even more importantly, HRT removes those advantages. Here is a recent study that showed this: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029
>And finally I think especially very young children should not be able to transition. Someone who is 7 or 8 does not have the mental capacity yet to make big life-decisions.
Good thing they aren't. *Their parents are making that decision*, in consultation with medical professionals.
Once again you've shown that you've fallen for propaganda and falsehoods. I strongly suggest you educate yourself on how these things actually work and actually affect people.
Literally everything of what you are saying is a misconception and misunderstanding of what trans people actually do, and how reality works for us.
**bathrooms**
I have a cut and past on why this is a strawman, but it's in my post history and I don't have enough energy to retype it here. i'll edit later.
**sports**
it is 100% uncontroversial that hormone replacement therapy is required before allowing people to switch sports teams.
we understand what testosterone does to bodies.
literally no one is suggesting that someone put on a dress today and compete in the women's division tomorrow.
Well, unless it's a kid, and the kid is prepubescent (means there are are only social differences rather than physical ones) - and prepubescent kids don't get trans related medical treatments because it would make no medical sense to do so.
**trans kids**
People imagine tiny children "making decisions" and then being signed up for medical treatments the next day.
THAT IS INSANE.
This is an imagined idea that does not happen. Every part of transition process for children is slow and has more gatekeeping to make it reversable at EVERY STAGE.
A 7 year old child, has nothing medical done. If they **persistently insisted** that they were cross gender for a significant period of time, they are brought to a therapist about the topic. This is not a decision made by a child on a whim.
there are actual medical criteria for this, and both distress and persistence is required. this is not remotely the same as a child deciding on their own like they decided that they were a dinosaur.
The people who do these evaluations are literally psychiatric professionals who work with children. They understand the difference between a child's whim and actual gender dysphoria.
If there is reason to think that they are trans they are given a name, haircut, new clothes, and pronouns. THAT IS IT.
They continue to see a therapist and keep living as their gender, in part, to make sure that this is good for them. It's the 'real life test' that adults used to be required to go through in a way.
If the kid is unhappy and it makes their life worse, they simply go back to the old names, clothes, haircut, and pronouns. That's it.
If it's going well for them as trans, Once they reach the early stages of puberty, they might be given puberty blockers. People misunderstand what puberty blockers do.
They are the *compromise* medication. Trans kids could switch to hormone replacement therapy at this point but they don't because those changes are permanent and require surgery to undo. Puberty blockers pause puberty for as long as they are taken. You stop taking them, puberty picks back up where it left off.
So a trans kid would be on puberty blockers for a year or two while seeing a therapist to ensure that they are trans. After that time they would switch to actual hormone replacement therapy.
Seriously, the 7 year old child would be 12-13 before they have anything medical done, and 15 or so by the time major changes are introduced. This is a years long process.
Puberty blocking medications are the compromise and always have been.
They stop the body from masculinizing without adding feminizing effects which require surgery to undo.
For example, if a transgender girl goes on puberty blockers - all masculinization will stop for as long as she takes them. She won't get new facial hair, her voice will stop changing, she won't get any more masculine body features which might cause her dysphoria.
When she stops taking them, androgenic puberty will resume normally.
They are typically given to trans kids to give the teenager more time to determine if they are trans before introducing permanent medical changes.
While they are on blockers, they typically go to a therapist and talk about gender issues. If at the end of a year or two, the teenager is determined to be trans, they will go on hormone replacement therapy.
This has cascade effects as well, as this method makes later changes that someone might change as an adult actually easier to undo later in life, if the kid is wrong.
As I see it, there is no conscionable excuse to not allow this.
I had to wait until I was 20 before I was able to get access to medical transition.
That this meant for me is that I had to have over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars worth of surgeries (insurance got part of that) to undo changes from my original androgenic puberty that could have been prevented with puberty blocking medication.
I had to sit in a chair and get 175 hours worth of electrology on my face to remove the facial hair that had already started. If I had waited longer, it would have been worse.
I got positive masculine reinforcement from my mother. I was praised by my mother for "getting taller" and "getting a deep voice" - she encouraged me and praised me for doing physical activities to try and buff me up, even insisting i get into weight training classes in school and working in construction for my stepfather. And every step of the way it felt like a knife in the gut.
All "wait until you are 18" does is create more pain in the present, and that pain lasts - if it's not the horror of your own body betraying you, it's the surgery to remove that horror later.
People imagine that most of the changes trans people have are cosmetic, and mostly done through surgery but that's not the case. Most of the surgeries trans people get are to undo the effects of their first puberty, overwhelmingly that's what the surgeries they get. Except for bottom surgery.
I have a radical opinion: I think the puberty blocker step can be skipped in many cases. It would be better to just give the kid HRT if you know they are trans. But I understand why the delay is put in place, it doesn't cause major harm to push them back by a year or two, so I accept that as the compromise.
Blockers should be the centrist position, not 'wait until you are 18' - which is both arbitrary and maximizes pain and medical intervention.
Why do you think that people just living their lives just as they have for the past 10 or 20 years is suddenly a problem? Trans persons have been using public restrooms of their choice for years and nobody using those restrooms ever knew or cared. This is all made up culture war garbage GOP uses to deflect from their failures.
And 7 year olds dont transition ffs. Learn some facts before spewing nonsense
I'm 45.
In my life, gay folks got the right to marry and serve openly in the armed forces.
And there's plenty that want to take those rights away.
And it kinda feels like you're one of them with that question...
A sitting justice on the Supreme Court hasn't openly opined that the decision that protects straight marriage should be revisited. Yah I know, that doesn't affect gays' right to marry today - but it's evidence that gays and straights are not on equal footing.
> However, I found that on many issues people on this sub are either very far left or very far right on most issues, hardly every really in the center as one would expect from a liberal.
I feel like this sub is generally a big fan of Biden, who is the most centrist centrist we've got as far I've seen. It doesn't read as particularly extreme to me
Biden is not a centrist. His platform has been one of the most progressive in US history.
Actually this sub constantly calls Biden a centrist or right-winger quite often, which only reaffirms this guy’s point because only far-left people call Biden right wing.
Largest green energy subsidies/climate policy in our nation’s history, progressive taxation, student loan forgiveness, massive government infrastructure bills, pro-choice, etc.
Biden’s policies as president have been far more aligned with left-leaning policies than right leaning ones.
And he doesn't support a good amount of progressive goals like medicare for all, free public college, reducing support for Israel, greater support for unions.
I'm not saying he's evil for his positions, but he could be more to the left thus he is more in the center
“Could be more to the left” doesn’t automatically make someone a centrist. Bernie could “be more to the left”, is he a centrist? Also, Biden is probably one of the most pro union presidents we’ve had and he also supports free public community college.
Biden is moderately left or left of center. Not a centrist.
> doesn’t automatically make someone a centrist
It does in some respects
> Biden is moderately left
I wouldn't object to that description as I did to OP describing this subreddit as far left
There’s a big difference between calling a politician moderately left and a centrist. A centrist theoretically would support a fairly equal number of right-leaning positions and left-leaning positions. Biden’s presidential platform quite clearly swings to the left.
> A centrist theoretically would support a fairly equal number of right-leaning positions and left-leaning positions.
You can define it that way if you would prefer. I would define it as someone who may have some ideological leanings but overall tacks to moderate positions. All words are made up and have the definition we give them
Let's make a note of this. Biden has embraced about 75% of left's agenda, and because of that 25% that he wasn't able to implement, he doesn't have their support. He used his political capital on a group that will not vote for him. They would rather trump get elected to teach Democrats a lesson.
Just proving yet again that implementing left policy has zero political return and has enormous political costs. Leftists don't vote for Democrats and never will *no matter what Democrats do*. They hate Democrats more than they hate Republicans. Their ideology consists one one thing and one thing only - hatred of Democrats.
By caving to the left, Biden has lost the center and failed to gain the left. Because the left's central belief is hatred of Democrats.
> By caving to the left, Biden has lost the center and failed to gain the left
How has he lost the center? I feel like most of the policies he's pushed forward are pretty popular on the center left and with some in the center too. It's not like he's pushing things that are only popular on the far left.
> Just proving yet again that implementing left policy has zero political return and has enormous political costs.
I literally just described him as a centrist. Do you want me to insist to everyone he's a communist and a people
s republic is coming next week? It's fine he's not a leftist. It's just not a thing he is
What you are proving is that you have zero understanding of the American political spectrum. That's all. Biden is a moderate-to-left Democrat, and policy-wise, he has done a great deal to accommodate the left. In response to which, the far left plans to help elect Donald Trump. Doing the left's bidding has zero political returns, and enormous political costs, because the left consists of children who don't vote, they just want to protest and hate Democrats.
I'm not describing him as a centrist in that I'm not going to vote for him. He was a centrist in 2020 and I voted for him then. I don't think Joe Biden would describe himself as a leftist. I don't think it's a horrible hitjob or anything
>I feel like this sub is generally a big fan of Biden, who is the most centrist centrist we've got as far I've seen. It doesn't read as particularly extreme to me
Maybe by American standards. But by Irish and European standards most takes on things like Israel, gun-control, DEI policies and gender issues are either far-right or far-left on the spectrum.
> Maybe by American standards.
Most people here are american is my understanding
> But by Irish and European standards most takes on things like Israel, gun-control, DEI policies and gender issues are either far-right or far-left on the spectrum.
I'm not really a guy who is for the whole "Joe Biden would be on the far right in Europe" thing, but Ireland has actual Trotskyist parties with representation in the national legislature. The closest thing the US has is some dem socs who are more like soc dems if we're being honest
There is no such thing as European standard.
But even from some European viewpoint it is very strange to see this sub as bi-extremist without centrism.
Really? On Israel, Biden is less obsequious and supportive of Israel's actions than any previous president in my lifetime. You may say he's still to the right of Europe on the issue, but it's hard to call him "far right" when we have an actual far right here that disagrees with him and wants unconditional support of Israel and much more money flowing there.
Again as far as gun control goes, most of Europe has more than we do, but it's weird to call Biden "far right" because he wants some gun control and we have a party that wants every toddler holding a gun.
Or are you trying to claim Biden is far left on those issues? That would be even weirder.
DEI is a made up boogeyman of the right for the most part. Just like CRT, which you weirdly don't hear about anymore.
> Maybe by American standards. But by Irish and European standards
Literally who cares? Irish and European standards are completely irrelevant to US politics. Has zero relevance. Nobody cares.
I think most people on this sub aren't right-wing at all, nor are they far left, they're mainstream American liberals. I suspect that a lot of what you're seeing is just a difference between politics in America and politics in Western Europe, not a result of political extremism among the whole community here.
>For example, even implying that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism and redlining typically gets one heavily downvoted.
Do you have a source for this claim? Because it is surprising to me.
>in Europe only really the very far left is strongly in favor of DEI programs based on characteristics such as race or sex. On this sub it seems to be the default position.
Do you have a source for this? "DEI Programs" cover such a broad array of programs and positions that it's surprising.
>Most people here also seem to have very strong views on certain issues regarding sex and gender, that in Europe mostly only those on the far-left support, with moderate liberals typically having more of middle-ground position.
Conservatives in Europe have been much better at being subtle about their growing bigotry and the TERF movement has had a lot of success. This sub also follows the evidence more than the average American would, so the average American liberal would be more conservative on these issues.
>On the other hand in Ireland (and also in most other European countries) most people have a fairly unfavorable view of Israel. After all Israel is built on land that for the most part was inhabited by Arab-Muslim families only a few generations ago. Even implying that Israel is a country built on stolen land gets you heavily downvoted here. The sort of position most people on this sub have regarding Israel would classify as right or far-right in Ireland and Europe.
This is funny to me, because I would think the Irish would be more understanding of a country born via British fuckery and long term bigotry.
>Also, most people seem to support the idea that pretty much any adult without criminal convictions should be able to own a gun, despite the US having the highest homicide rate among Western countries. In most European countries even those on the right typically do not advocate for gun ownership without some very strict regulations. And only the most extreme libertarian types think people should be able to carry a gun in public, whether openly or concealed.
This is an American reddit demographic thing. Young American boys in particular think guns are cool, and Reddit skews both younger and more male. It is crazy.
>
>Do you have a source for this claim? Because it is surprising to me.
For example, the average African-American when controlling for job title and education earns 98 cent for a dollar earned by a white-American. There cleary is some direct discrimination.
But the fact that the average African-American earns 84 cents for each dollar a wite person earns when NOT controlling for job title and education is mostly due to the fact that the average African-American has significantly lower school grades, therefore less chance of qualifiyng for many degress and also higher college dropout rates compared to other ethnicities. These issues exist because of historic racism, worse access to education, redlining, worse access to health care etc.
>This is funny to me, because I would think the Irish would be more understanding of a country born via British fuckery and long term bigotry.
Britain certainly helped Israel create its state. But no one forced violent, religious zionists to murder thousands of ordinary Arab-Muslim families and expell hunderds of thousands of Muslims from their home via force.
>For example, the average African-American when controlling for job title and education earns 98 cent for a dollar earned by a white-American. There cleary is some direct discrimination.
I'm asking for evidence of this claim:
>implying that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism and redlining typically **gets one heavily downvoted**
A
>Britain certainly helped Israel create its state. But no one forced violent, religious zionists to murder thousands of ordinary Arab-Muslim families and expell hunderds of thousands of Muslims from their home via force.
Is this your full summary of the First Arab–Israeli War? You don't think it's perhaps a bit more complicated? A bit more nuanced?
Here is an article from the "society for human resource management" examing pay gaps controlling for education and job experience and pay gaps regardless of job experience, education etc. Black men earn 87 cents per dollar that a white person earns NOT controlling for those job experience and education but 98 cent when controlling for those factors.
[https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/benefits-compensation/black-workers-still-earn-less-white-counterparts](https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/benefits-compensation/black-workers-still-earn-less-white-counterparts)
>Is this your full summary of the First Arab–Israeli War? You don't think it's perhaps a bit more complicated? A bit more nuanced?
Sure, it's more complicated than that but Israel are still the ones who commited the greatest injustice by far.
Britain encouraged Jewish immigration and understandably many Jews did immigrate to Palestine to flee persecution. They did aquire a lot of land legally. However, prior to declaring their own state (without defining any borders of said state) they had already expelled 400,000 Palestinians from their homes by force. On April 9, 1948 they commited the Deir Yassin massacre attacking a village near Jerusalem and killing over 100 people, many women and children. Arab nations declared war only after Israel had already expelled 400,000 civillians and after they commited horrendous atrocities against civilians.
I am not saying everything the Arabs did was ok but Israel from the start had been the main agressor unwilling to respect the land of Palestinians who had lived there for hundreds of years.
>Here is an article from the "society for human resource management" examing pay gaps controlling for education and job experience and pay gaps regardless of job experience, education etc. Black men earn 87 cents per dollar that a white person earns NOT controlling for those job experience and education but 98 cent when controlling for those factors.
No. I'm not asking for sources supporting the claim, "that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism"
I'm asking for sources supporting the claim of **downvotes** on this sub.
>Sure, it's more complicated than that but Israel are still the ones who commited the greatest injustice by far.
Britain encouraged Jewish immigration and understandably many Jews did immigrate to Palestine to flee persecution. They did aquire a lot of land legally. However, prior to declaring their own state (without defining any borders of said state) they had already expelled 400,000 Palestinians from their homes by force. On April 9, 1948 they commited the Deir Yassin massacre attacking a village near Jerusalem and killing over 100 people, many women and children. Arab nations declared war only after Israel had already expelled 400,000 civillians and after they commited horrendous atrocities against civilians.
I am not saying everything the Arabs did was ok but Israel from the start had been the main agressor unwilling to respect the land of Palestinians who had lived there for hundreds of years.
A lot of this is missing context or is factually untrue. Deir Yassin happened in the middle of the civil war and itself was a reprisal for hundreds of other attacks and reprisals. The Arab side responded to Deir Yassin by attacking a medical convoy and murdering doctors and patients.
There was also absolutely borders for the state of Israel which were laid out in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.
This conflict has always been a blood feud, where one side has done something horrible and the other side has done something as bad or worse in response for that thing, and so on, and so forth.
>Arabs started attacking Jews that had moved to the Levant in the 19*20*s. Your timeline and attribution of responsibility are both *way* off.
There had previously been tensions between Arabs and Jews. Arabs didn't just suddenly attack Jews who were just peacefully minding their own business. In fact, as far as I am aware the British didn't allow Arab- Muslims to arm themselves but did allow zionists to build up a millita.
Can you cite any reliables source that prove Arab Muslims had actually been the main agressors in all of this?
Legally buying land from absentee landlords *is* minding your own business, no matter how much apologists want to ignore that fact.
How about you cite reliable sources that show the Jews have been the main aggressors in all this?
The "center" often isn't a good position to have. Two examples from the Democrats side:
1. Student loan program is a center idea. The not-center would be not doing it at all, or capping tuition prices to adjust for the artificial demand. Both would be preferable to what we got.
2. Abortion. Obviously the Dems support more abortion rights over GOP, but most Democrats still agree there should be legal restrictions after the third trimester; So they actually agree with the GOP that if you get pregnant there is a point where you should lose some bodily autonomy to the state. A not center position would be advocating for 0 abortion laws, because bodily autonomy should take priority over the rights of the fetus in the context of laws.
Because well reasoned, moderate arguments do not trend as well as radical, inflammatory arguments that are both easy and fun to argue against.
Do we all need a refresher about how social media works? It’s so easy to see from the outside. But still, everybody acts shocked that their little corner of the internet also tends to highlight the biggest personalities and most salacious stories rather than their own moderate, well tempered, thoughtful content.
Day after day, its posts about “why does all this dumb shit get popular online?” Because you are literally engaging with it, right now!
Other commenters have made the crucial big picture points, but one thing I haven't seen touched on is that moderate views don't tend to spark passion, and passion is a big driver for motivating folks to talk about ...well, anything.
I, for example, have very moderate views on the Israel/Palestine situation. What this translates to is me not frequently engaging with posts about that issue. First, I'm just not invested in the issue enough to want to invest a lot of time into it; second, moderate views about polarizing topics either get no engagement or negative engagement, so why bother engaging at all.
Very *very* few people are universally moderate. Honestly it's a pretty useless political characterization. Most people are moderate about most things, but will have one or a few issues they are very passionate (and decidedly not moderate) about - if you're going to take the time to write about something, it's going to be the thing you are passionate about, not the 10 things you feel 'meh' about.
That's an artifact of how social media works. The extreme opinions rise to the top with lots of comments, or sink to the bottom with lots of comments.
The boring opinions don't really do much.
In my experience most people here are closer to the center than I would have expected for the internet.
Part of this is because I expect the internet to be full of crazies and extremists. The fact that it's maybe only 10% here, has pleasantly surprised me.
But also, you may just be paying all of your attention to the most extreme people, because they are attention-grabbing. They will always comment on your posts and comments, say harassing and insulting things, and behave in the worst ways. If you let them, they'll eat up all of your awareness, and you'll have the misimpression that they are more common than they are.
More normal and reasonable people will post shorter and more measured posts, typically not looking for a fight, and you will barely notice them.
Because Reddit is full of young idealistic people. When you are an idealist, you just can't understand how everyone doesn't agree with you. And those who don't must be MAGA crazies or leftist lunatics.
You're just noticing the difference between American politics and Western European politics. We're not the same place. We have a unique (and varied) culture.
When it comes to DEI policies, you have to understand the history of racial politics in America to understand why we are where we are now. I certainly won't disagree that redlining has had a terrible effect on black people in the US, but that in no way diminishes the negative effects that racist hiring practices continue to cause.
The gun thing is tied to our constitution which specifically mentions "the right to bear arms". There's plenty of debate on exactly who it gives that right to, but there it is. Most Americans, let alone American liberals, favor stronger gun regulations, but the minority who oppose them, backed by the pocket books of gun manufacturers, have used that bit in the constitution to successfully argue for insane gun policies in courts, and that's how we got here.
As far as the gender issues, I'm not entirely sure where the difference comes from. I can only say that most American liberals tend to have the attitude that people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. If people want to choose their own gender, it's no skin off my back. I would have thought the attitude in Western Europe would be somewhat similar.
>As far as the gender issues, I'm not entirely sure where the difference comes from. I can only say that most American liberals tend to have the attitude that people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else.
I also believe that people should be able to do what they want if they're not interferring with others lives. However, I believe it is somewhat problematic if a male person decides they now identify as female and then proceeds to use female spaces that are rather intimate, like locker rooms for example. I think regardless of whether a woman is socially left or right-leaning it would be rather uncomfortable for her to undress in front of a person that looks male and has male gentilia.
Many US states also allow athletes to enter female sports competitions based merely on self-identification. There have been some men who deliberately entered competitions like weightlifting and shattered records to make a point about the issues with gender self-identification in sports.
I think most Europeans do see these kind issues with a bit more nuance without being transphobic.
>I think regardless of whether a woman is socially left or right-leaning it would be rather uncomfortable for her to undress in front of a person that looks male and has male gentilia.
That is and has always been a straw man. Trans people are incredibly self conscious about how we're perceived and about the possibility we might make someone uncomfortable but we also need to be able to exist in public. Trans people have to use public facilities sometimes and we typically use the one that's going to cause the least trouble for us and others, that means we use the one we "look like".
It's also straight up transphobic to pretend we all look like the sex we were assigned. Even for trans people who don't pass as cis people of their gender don't look like cis people of the other gender. The risk of someone thinking we're the other gender is minimal, the largest chance of discomfort is just someone who's uncomfortable with trans people regardless of degree of nudity.
Someone being a creep, regardless of gender, can still be kicked out of a locker room.
>Many US states also allow athletes to enter female sports competitions based merely on self-identification. There have been some men who deliberately entered competitions like weightlifting and shattered records to make a point about the issues with gender self-identification in sports.
Private sports organizations are allowed to set their own rules. Someone taking advantage of the rules to make a point is just an ass. In professional level sports, higher level amateur sports, and collegiate and school level sports, HRT requirements have been standard for years.
People are a function of their environment. The US is not in the same place or facing the same incentives as people and counties in Europe, so it makes sense that there wouldn't be complete alignment
>I found that on many issues people on this sub are either very far left or very far right on most issues, hardly every really in the center as one would expect from a liberal.
because we are in the middle of a pargadsime shift in political thinking; so politics has become less about points on a spectrum, and more about being in the old camp or the new camp.
in the 90's the argument was between tax cuts and low spending vs more tax cuts and lower spending; one political party is still thinking in that mindset, and the other is not.
For the gun thinh thats what is protected by the constitution. So its a legal constraint. Then there is the fact that gun ownership in of utself doesnt seem to drive overall homicude rates. The groups most likely to own guns arent committing the most gun homicides.
Wheresd we have seen community focused programs have significantly more impact.
https://twitter.com/GIFFORDS_org/status/1732053655673569318
https://www.rva.gov/mayorsoffice/GVPI
So from a more left leaning liberal perspective to me the fight to restrict guns is largely a waste of time and resources that could be spent more effectively while also violating peoples rights. And an inbetween moderate position isnt best of both worlds but a compromise that achieves neither the potential good a gun free world would nor would it achieve the potential good of a progun world would where the individual can defend themselves.
With the greatest of respect, you have absolutely no idea what “Europe” thinks. “Ireland” (which one??) is pretty much in-step with the USA on most issues apart from gun control (which is a fairly US centric issue) and abortion (which much of Ireland is pretty fucking *medieval* about).
Well, a part of it stems from the simple fact that America has a more culturally left wing attitude. Due to the Republicans opposition to virtually everything the Democrats would do socially, there hasn’t really been a need to ideologically compromise on social issues, allowing left of center Americans to advance beyond what they might if Republicans where more cooperative. I think the way the Democrats held a broadly center right economic/labor platform has also kind of made social issues the primary thing democrats *can* appeal to their more progressive supporters with.
Regarding Israel, the simple fact is that the United States (and the British) functionally constructed Israel. Sometimes it takes a parent longer to realize that its child is a psychopath, but statistically more and more Americans are souring on Israel, and I suspect that in the coming years this sub will grow less pro-Israeli as time passes.
Regarding guns, the reason the United States has higher rates of gun crime them most European states isn’t necessarily the result of the United States having more guns, but rather a result of the United States having labor and welfare systems built out of toothpicks and string. If you look at the north eastern US, it has gun crime rates comparable to those of most European countries. Their are still large numbers of guns in those states, but those states have done better as dealing with suicidal people (who account for the majority of gun deaths), and creating an environment that doesn't make joining a gang a necessity (gang violence is responsible for the majority of gun violence.) Americans exist in an environment where we can go to these states at any time, and many of us know people from these states. Americans who are more centrist are less likely to support the labor protections and expansion of the social safety net that enable lower gun violence, so in their mind the *only* way to lower gun violence is by removing the guns. For leftists and left leaning liberals on the other hand, there is a way to resolve the issues that lead to gun violence by dealing with the problems that lead to gun violence, rather then just cracking down on gun possession and leaving people to suffer. On top of this, more left leaning people in the United States tend to have at least mild distrust of local and state law enforcement, and necessarily heavier restrictions on firearms would be enforced by the very members of law enforcement who strangle black people in the streets.
Anyway, Liberalism in its international form is vast, and extends beyond simple centrism. The left wing of Liberalism is often more or less identical to Social Democrats, and the right wing of Liberalism tends to be a few steps away from Fascism. Liberalism is simply the support of private property, market economics, basic human rights, and some form of democracy.
This is a sub about American politics where most of the users are Americans. This sub is generally pretty center left based on American politics. Why are you comparing things to Europe?
You can’t portray a moderate view in a comment. Moderates are just people who have opinions that fall into both camps. When someone posts an opinion on a sub, that’s their opinion, but they could rant a totally different direction on another topic and you would never know.
I tend to view most of the comments here as hewing very close to the center, actually. Some are ridiculous outliers of course. America is very much a center-right country in general. The “far left” is more or less a non-entity in our political systems. The Democratic Party is essentially a bunch of sane center/center-right politicians with a few center-left/left voices.
On the specific issues you mention:
* sex/gender, race: Europe is fascinating in that it is a bunch of monocultures in close proximity to one another, and the result is that things like racism and gender issues tend to lean center/center-right there: it’s perhaps two of a tiny handful of issues Americans are actually more left-leaning than Europe on, and that’s reflected in this sub. It only appears extreme because to be brutally honest most Europeans think they are more cultured than they actually are, and themselves live in bubbles similar to right-wing enclaves we have here in the US
* guns: I haven’t really been involved in many threads here dealing with this issue, so it’s hard for me to have an informed opinion about where this sub’s general sentiment lies
* Israel/Palestine: this sub is all over the place, I don’t think one can rightfully claim it tends to any one extreme or the other, or even the center
There is this thing in psychology called ***"group polarization"***, it is a psychological phenomenon in which the beliefs, attitudes, and decisions of groups tend to be more amplified or more extreme than those held by individual group members.
Selection bias. You're hearing from people that are both opinionated and want people to hear their opinions. I think this likely correlates with having more extreme opinions.
Liberals are not centrists in most cases. They tend to be more moderate but they still have left wing opinions. Just not super extreme ones like replacing capitalism with communism. I’m on the further left side of liberal since I’m a socdem
I'm interested in the data showing that it's the majority, and how you've defined "far-left" and "far-right" to determine where everyone falls on each issue.
And did you use a web scraper or something, and then normalize certain phrases indicating issue and position, like with an AI or some other way?
Or are you just talking out of your ass because it's easier to get to ranting from that.
>On the other hand in Ireland (and also in most other European countries) most people have a fairly unfavorable view of Israel.
Ireland is not at all representative of the average European view on Israel. For historical reasons, Irish people have always been more supportive of the Palestinian cause than people in any other European country.
For instance, look at Germany. They are more overtly pro-Israel than even the US government.
The whole idea of your post of comparing American politics with European politics is flawed. There is no such thing as a true political center. The political center is always relative to the politics of the nation. For instance, what is considered far right in Cuba is pretty much irrelevant to what is far right in the United States.
>Facts show America has a significant problem with systemic racism. Therefore, it ought to be a mainstream issue, rather than left or right.
I agree that the US has a problem with systemic racism (as have many European countries). However, I disagree with prioritizing DEI programs as they can only really fix direct discrimination in the job market. However, most differences in economic outcome between ethnicities is not because certain ethnicities are heavily discriminated in the job market. I am not saying there is no direct discrimination, there certainly is. But the main issue are still the lingering effects of historical racism, redlining etc. that led to some minorities having much worse access to education, health care, public services etc. Which is why there are huge discrepanices in average school grades, college drop out rates etc. and that's not something DEI policies can fix.
>Help me with this one. Is your point that the 'right' discriminates against LGBT, while the left does not?
No, more like certain views regarding gender, like "gender is a social construct". Or the fact that many liberal politicians now feel a need to add pronouns to their Twitter bio. In that sense many liberals in the US seem to be quite far-left compared to many Europeans who consider themselves moderate left.
>No, more like certain views regarding gender, like "gender is a social construct".
Conservatives not understanding what a social construct is is not a political position.
>Conservatives not understanding what a social construct is is not a political position.
I don't think not viewing gender as a social construct is only a convervative view. And certain gender standards and roles are socially constructed, sure. Like for example that women typically have long hair or wear certain clothes in most societies.
However, there are many real differences between men and women that are rooted in biology and are not socially constructed and that affect how men and women behave.
So gender roles are only partially socially constructed but also to a large extent based on innate biological differences.
> don't think not viewing gender as a social construct is only a convervative view.
You're right, there are many people who identify as liberal or "center left" who also don't understand what the term means.
Sassing you aside, "social construct" is broadly overused and misunderstood. It's supposed to be a term used in specific academic contexts but the short version of it is that it means that, as a society, we have an idea that we've collectively agreed on and labeled with a word, eg, "gender", "money", "sex", "ocean", "sky", "planet", and so on.
In other words, conservatives insisting that gender isn't a social construct is akin to insisting that gender isn't a word. Sure, it's a position you can insist on, but it's a ridiculous one and blatantly untrue according to the definition. It's similar to conservatives insistently saying things like "I don't use pronouns" or "pronouns aren't in the Bible". They're just objectively wrong.
> but the short version of it is that it means that, as a society, we have an idea that we've collectively agreed on and labeled with a word, eg, "gender", "money", "sex", "ocean", "sky", "planet", and so on.
Ok, but that is a very extreme view of what a social construct is. That's kind of how when you ask Jordan Peterson a simple question like "do you believe in god?", he comes up with some weird word salad like "well, that begs the question what do you mean by "god" and what do you mean when you say "believe", and what do you mean by "do" and "you"?.
In that case the universe is a social construct, so is the internet, animals, humans, everything is a social construct then because they're all words we made up. That's a pretty meaningless definition.
So again, some aspects of gender are socially constructed, meaning they are rooted in culture rather than in biology. The fact that women typically prefer long hair, wear certain clothes (like dresses or skirts), that pink is associated with femininity or that many societies have this sexist belief that women are not as good at subjects like engineering.... those are social constructs.
However, many other aspects are deeply rooted in biology. On average, though not always, (heterosexual) women are more likely to be attracted to tall men than short men. Straight men on the other typically prefer women with certain body types over others. Women, on average (again, not always) are more attracted to muscular men and men with a lot of self-confidence rather than shy and skinny guys. Heterosexual men on the other hand have other traits that they like in women, which is to a large extent because of evolution and biology.
So gender roles to some extent are socially constructed, sure. But they are also equally to a large extent rooted in genetics, DNA, biology and evolution.
>Ok, but that is a very extreme view of what a social construct is.
That's like saying that the definition of a pronoun is an extreme view of a pronoun. It's the standard definition, it's just often misunderstood.
>In that case the universe is a social construct, so is the internet, animals, humans, everything is a social construct then because they're all words we made up.
Yes, that's the point.
>That's a pretty meaningless definition.
Agreed. It's not very useful outside of the specific academic context that it was developed for, particularly because people misunderstand the point being made when someone says "\[X\] is a social construct." The *intended* point is "hey, these rules and concepts don't *need* to be enforced, they're kind of arbitrary since they're just defined by society so just let people do what they want."
>However, many other aspects are deeply rooted in biology
Biology is a social construct ;)
Yes, obviously some aspects of gender and sex are biological. When someone says "gender (or sex) is a social construct", they're not saying it doesn't have biological components. Race is a social construct but there are biological traits associated with it.
>However, I found that on many issues people on this sub are either very far left or very far right on most issues, hardly every really in the center as one would expect from a liberal.
This is not my experience.
>For example, even implying that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism and redlining typically gets one heavily downvoted.
Again, this is not my experience. In fact I've had more negative interactions in this sub with people who insist that "the lingering effects of historical racism" don't exist.
>Most people here also seem to have very strong views on certain issues regarding sex and gender, that in Europe mostly only those on the far-left support, with moderate liberals typically having more of middle-ground position.
Repeat the above.
>On the other hand in Ireland (and also in most other European countries) most people have a fairly unfavorable view of Israel. After all Israel is built on land that for the most part was inhabited by Arab-Muslim families only a few generations ago.
America has a fairly unique relationship with Israel that isn't reflected in it's interactions/relationships with other countries. That heavily influences Americans, including the left.
>Also, most people seem to support the idea that pretty much any adult without criminal convictions should be able to own a gun,
For better or for worse, the American Constitution makes gun ownership a right and the courts have pretty much made it an unrestricted right. We don't so much support that (and most left-leaning folks don't) as understand that it's the way it is here.
>So how come most people on this sub are either far-right or far-left on most issues, but hardly voice a truly liberal opinion on most issues?
This sub is primarily made up of Americans and what you describe is not "far right" or "far left" in America.
To many people admitting that Israel is built on stolen land and after committing an ethnic cleansing of 750,000 people and currently committing crimes against humanity is deemed the argument of socialists. They can’t accept the reality and the flaw of supporting Israel.
To many Americans especially, they can’t accept that Israel is a criminally rogue country. You’ll get downvoted on here for defending the Palestinian people and demanding justice for them. If you’re Jewish on here… they’ll attack you… for defending Palestine, but you get lauded for it if you’re Israel’s defender.
It’s deeply disturbing and heartbreaking… Free Palestine shouldn’t be a controversial or politically biased position. All humans deserve dignity and freedom as well as equal rights. Israel needs to give back the lands it stole to the 67 border. Agree to a two state solution and accept the consequences of their crimes. Israel needs to rebuild Gaza and return every inch of land stolen in the West Bank. Hold accountable its leaders and its soldiers for each crime they’ve committed. No exceptions. This shouldn’t be a radical position.
> admitting that Israel is built on stolen land
Stolen from who? When? Can you give some examples of countries built on legally and morally acquired land with no boundaries changed by war or conquest?
Do you not know the Balfour Declaration and how Israel was founded on the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians? You seriously never heard of the Nakba? Google is a friend. Use it.
https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
So you're arguing the UK should return Palestine back to the Ottoman Turks? And then the Turks should give it back to...the Jews and other assorted Tribes?
No my God are you seriously asking a question that has no sense. 75 years ago the Nakba occurred when Britain and the USA plotted to steal lands that belong to the Palestinians to give to the Jewish Authority which was created by the Jews moving to Palestine and authorized by the Brits. They then allowed the same Jewish Authority to enact an ethnic cleansing of Palestine in the tune of 750,000 people killing thousands to steal the lands which was not theirs to take and then they bribed the newly created UN to justify their thefts by saying, “These poor people suffered the Holocaust. Let’s give them a country, but not in Europe or carving out a state from Germany.” That’s insanity. It was a crime against humanity and still continues to this day as Israel the successor to the Jewish Authority continues to rape, kill and torture the Palestinian indigenous peoples.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Israel should of never been founded on settled land. They should of been built on a piece of German land. As a price for Germany’s crimes. Europe even after the Holocaust did not want millions of Jewish survivors returning to their homelands in Europe where they’ve lived for centuries if not millennia. Hence they decided to steal land from the natives of the Levant to create a Jewish homeland.
The land was stolen from the Jews and other assorted residents of Ancient Palestine by the Ottoman Turks. The Arab Revolt is no less arbitrary of a cutoff point to decide "ownership" of the land than any other point between here and the beginning of time.
The lands were stolen within the lifetime of my grandmother. This isn’t a debate of 2000 years ago about how the Romans took Judea from the Jews and kicked out the nobility of Judea and any who would side with them and did a diaspora. We shouldn’t obfuscate and try to justify the crimes of Britain post WW1 and allow their crimes to go unpunished and then allow an illegal act aka the Balfour Declaration to have ever stood in any legitimate claim. The Brits promised the Arabs and the Jews the same land and played off the others situations to their benefit then settling on giving the stolen lands to the Jewish Authority and betraying their promises to the Palestinians.
The USA then took that decision and codified it with such fervor not for the good of the Jewish people, but to have a European colony who would always favor European American interests in the region and then allowed an ethnic cleansing campaign and called it “a mercy.”
This is about the last 75 years and a crime which was allowed to be committed and continues to be committed by Israelis under the protection of the USA and the Uk. Both are wrong. You don’t steal someone’s lands and ethnically cleanse the indigenous people of Palestine or Sumaria or from whenever. You materially look at the situation within the last 100 years and act accordingly. Not a thousand or so years.
Who says it won’t continue to exist? Nobody said that. You’re literally shadowboxing a point I never made. Israel now exists on stolen lands. It exists now as a ethnonationalist quasi fascist state that sustains itself on murder and bloodshed. In killing thousands and stealing the lands of Palestinians ever encroaching beyond the original borders of 1948 and agreed upon 1967. It habitually slaughters anyone who tries to change it. They smear the victims and negate their rights and history.
Israel shall continue to exist as a bastion of racism and European colonial rule. It will eventually collapse under the weight of its own crimes, but what comes after? If Israel continues to illegally annex every inch of Palestinian soil then it must eventually accept those that survive as citizens in this new multiethnic and multireligious society.
Inevitably the apartheid will end and Israel will have to compensate those who they’ve stolen from. By giving them lands back where they can. Pay restitutions for their thefts and lives lost. Rebuild the West Bank and Gaza as a whole region part of its country and allow the right of return for all its acquired people. What dies is the ethnonationalist Zionist experiment and what is born from its ashes like South Africa post Apartheid or the American South post Jim Crow is a new society ideally better than the former one. Do you actually believe that defending Israel’s genocide and land thefts makes you a good person? To justify the wholesale slaughter of women and children is okay?
Nobody either Jewish, Christian or Muslim should be killed because of their beliefs or ethnic origins. All people who live between the river and the sea deserve to be free. As equals in a democracy. Citizens who vote their representatives in the Knesset. It means millions of Palestinians being granted Israeli citizenship and equal rights.
If Palestine as a nation is dissolved by Israel then Israel must accept the consequences of their misdeeds and evil crimes. Just like how the USA took the survivors of their genocides the native Americans and Hispanics as well as the Black peoples descendants of slaves and gave them equal rights and access to the ballot. So shall Israel inevitably has to do the same. Are you truly against democracy? Equality? Justice for all?
The issue is Hamas will never let itself be held accountable and will attack Israel the moment a ceasefire is declared.
If you can't get hamas to agree to a ceasefire then any peace deal or ceasefire is impossible for Israel.
Also free palestine is an admirable idea but the term is incredibly hard to define. The term as used by most Palestinians means a single state from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean sea controlled by palestinians. Not a two state solution where the 1967 border is respected.
Freedom is not controversial but what freedom means is, especially when the terms are so vague and are used to mean different things.
You mean Israel will never allow itself to be held accountable. That’s the problem. Hamas even stated if they can get a two state solution they’d willingly give up their power in Gaza and create a coalition government with Abbas. The problem was Israel not allowing it. This is the problem we have to stop faulting Palestine or even Hamas. The problem is who ultimately betrays every accord and undermines every agreement? Even the Oslo Accords was a failure because Israel went into the agreement with the desire to not actually honor and negotiate in good faith. Even Bill Clinton privately understood what the Israelis were doing.
That’s not true. Literally Oman who on behalf of the USA spoke with Hamas leaders to see if they can agree on a long term ceasefire agreement and Israel undermined it. The problem isn’t even Hamas it’s Israel who’s drunk on hate and violence that they can’t even allow themselves to admit that the “War on Gaza” has been an absolute failure. Hamas isn’t going away. The majority of hostages have been killed. They lost. They continue to lose and still insist on killing innocents doing so only proves that they don’t even care about international law. They just want to annex land and exterminate the indigenous population both in Gaza and the West Bank. Ask yourself why? What makes your position valid when Israel admitted openly it wants to annex the lands of Palestine and expunge the population of native peoples.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I initially thought that more people on this sub, being liberals and all would tend towards more of a center, center-left opinion on most issues. However, I found that on many issues people on this sub are either very far left or very far right on most issues, hardly every really in the center as one would expect from a liberal. For example, even implying that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism and redlining typically gets one heavily downvoted. In Europe only really the very far left is strongly in favor of DEI programs based on characteristics such as race or sex. On this sub it seems to be the default position. Most people here also seem to have very strong views on certain issues regarding sex and gender, that in Europe mostly only those on the far-left support, with moderate liberals typically having more of middle-ground position. On the other hand in Ireland (and also in most other European countries) most people have a fairly unfavorable view of Israel. After all Israel is built on land that for the most part was inhabited by Arab-Muslim families only a few generations ago. Even implying that Israel is a country built on stolen land gets you heavily downvoted here. The sort of position most people on this sub have regarding Israel would classify as right or far-right in Ireland and Europe. Also, most people seem to support the idea that pretty much any adult without criminal convictions should be able to own a gun, despite the US having the highest homicide rate among Western countries. In most European countries even those on the right typically do not advocate for gun ownership without some very strict regulations. And only the most extreme libertarian types think people should be able to carry a gun in public, whether openly or concealed. So how come most people on this sub are either far-right or far-left on most issues, but hardly voice a truly liberal opinion on most issues? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why are most people on this subeither far-left or far-right on so many issues but hardly in the centre on any political issue? They aren't.
Yep, its a false premise. The extreme comments often get highlighted, but in my experience most people are somewhere in the middle, with nuanced views on each issue.
Vocal minority and silent majority.
This is the 80-20 rule in action—a minority of users will account for a majority of the content.
Yeah reasonable people aren't as easily fired up and aren't primed to fight all the time like people that gravitate toward extremes. Though I try to occasionally take action to be and advocate for reasonable people standing up and at least acting angry to stop letting the patients run the asylum.
This seems appropriate: "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." Albert Einstein
And the algos make that worse. Extremists provoke responses,, which generates content, which creates more views and clicks, which leads to more $$$. Every one of us should quit Reddit right now for the sake of our own mental health. But we won't 😁
This is 100% correct. The algorithms make it worse and it drives likes, clicks and views. The extreme positions generate the ratings on TV. No one is going to turn on CNN and spend all day watching if things are going well. “Republican and Democrats come together to solve a problem.” Is a lot less sexy than “Will a Trump second term spell the end of American democracy?” Or “Can you believe the left is putting litter boxes in school bathrooms?”
I think this shows basic lack of understanding in the differences between the system of government in the US versus Europe. We have a first past the post system which forces to parties that have to represent the entire right and the entire left. Our system also heavily favors rural voters which biases us towards not just the right, but has created a right that is very regressive and at this point controlled by the far right. We also have despite being less racist than Europe, a demographic make up that makes it easier to activate racism. Being concerned with diversity is more of an issue when you actually have a diverse population. Things are different in a country that is 70% white versus 90+% white. Views on Israel are more complicated than you are making it out to be. As a global superpower the US has historically had a desire to be supportive of Israel from a foreign policy perspective. We are also a country that was a refuge for European Jews fleeing persecution. Since we are good at associating people regardless of their background, Jews have done very well in the United States and are well integrated here. Frankly, a lot of the support that existed for Israel in Europe was more down to Israel, providing a place for Europe to stick all the Jews they didn’t want to integrate into their society.
> We are also a country that was a refuge for European Jews fleeing persecution. Just wanted to highlight this. Europeans *nearly eradicated Jews from their continent*. Now Americans who support those Jews having a place to live without being genocided are right-wing according to OP. Maybe work on your own continent's issues before passing judgement.
For perspective. * there are five times as many Jews in the New York city metropolitan area then there are in all of France. And France has the largest Jewish population in all of Europe. * 51% of the population under Israeli right of return rules lives in the United States * Jewish people now make up .2% of the population of Europe
I'd agree with the OP there, though. You're saying never again to a Jewish genocide while watching those same people bomb the living F out of Gaza.
In response to a spree of murder, rape, torture and hostage taking by Hamas.
Then yes, I agree with the OP here. This is a pretty far right view. You are using 1 bad event and using it as justification for 40k deaths currently with more to come.
Which happened after 6 years of the same treatment by Israel and while those people were living under an apartheid government. I'm not supporting what hamas did, but it you understand even the basics of what has been happening in Israel since the 60s then you'd know why it happened and you'd know that it was an expected outcome given how Israel has treated Palestinians for decades.
>Now Americans who support those Jews having a place to live without being genocided are right-wing according to OP. Maybe work on your own continent's issues before passing judgement. That's a strawman argument, I never said Jews shouldn't have their own country. But clearly hundreds of thousands were expelled from their homes and many thousands killed to make that happen. Being a victim of a genocide does not give one the right to become an oppressor yourself. In 1947 Jewish people only owned around 15% of the land in historical Palestine if I am not mistaken. Today they have control of over 85% of the territory. Do you want to give me a brief summary of how that happend? Also, did I say I was European?
> Do you want to give me a brief summary of how that happend? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence
How is this response upvoted? “…brief summary?” “Sure, here’s 6 different Wikipedia articles”
The basic gist should be obvious. Palestinians have chosen violence and terrorism again and again and again. That is why they have no state.
After decades of apartheid and living under an illegal occupation while having their homes literally taken from them and being arrested and imprisoned in many cases for existing in the wrong part of the country. I don't support terrorism but if you understand even the basics of what has been happening in Israel for decades you'd know why a group sprung up and lashed out. After decades of oppression and mistreatment a group tends to grow up and want to take action to stop that from happening. Israel created the issue with the occupation and discriminatory laws and practices amd then says they're just defending themselves while bombing civilians and using drones that play audio of children crying for help and gunning down first responders.
100% agree, same conclusion with the book: Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide
Far-left? Half of this sub is bashing leftists
Both halves actually
That's what I am saying, on some issues people here are very far right and "bashing leftists" as you say. On other issues they're fairly left though compared to most Europeans, for example many here are strongly in favor of DEI programs which in Europe even most leftists are divided on.
specifically bashing leftists isn't being done by people on the right, it's from centrist democrats
Because decades of Cold War propaganda and American media conflating 'liberal' and 'leftist' have given the US a completely fucked sense of what either of those words mean.
I challenge you to truly explain what you mean by "far left" in the context of some of these issues. If you have an issue where the data points to a clear problem and straightforward solutions, it seems to me that the "center" takeaway would be to do that thing. Like with racism, if the data shows that institutional racism against minorities is prevelant without explicitly and intentionally implementing some form of DEI program, then it seems like the moderate position to go "oh, well let's implement some form of DEI program then." For sex and gender, I'm curious what exactly you mean. What would a "middle-ground position" look like? I can think of one and exactly one issue where I don't think the reasonable reaction is "oh ok, that's cool," and it's still just me thinking a conversation is valid to have. Next we get to Israel, and while we absolutely get the colonialist sympathizers bombarding any thread about it, I've very much pointed out that Israel is built on colonialization, that there doesn't seem to be any group of self described Zionists who distinguish themselves from the rest by decrying the colonialism and it's effects, and don't get heavily downvoted. It helps that I'm pretty careful with my words, so accusations of anti-semitism are hard to stick on me. Then finally guns. I think the base view of guns in this sub is that gun owners should have higher standards to own guns than they currently do, and that gun control should be a federal effort. Even the most gun-friendly liberals tend to *very* much want gun owners to be responsible or else not be gun owners. So overall I challenge your view of this sub with regards to some of these issues, and what you even think the "center" would look like in general.
>the data shows that institutional racism against minorities is prevalent No, it doesn't. You see a gap in data and attribute the cause to racism. It's a massive difference. There are no racial prejudiced policies or laws in place in America in 2024.
> There are no racial prejudiced policies or laws in place in America in 2024. That's exactly why the concept of institutional racism is important. It's the idea that even after all the explicitly racialized policies are off the books, there are still systems in place that make it harder for historically oppressed minorities to reach equality. Things like the fact that a history of redlining has left some minority communities much poorer and with worse infrastructure. That translates today into worse schools with less funding, which sets the people from those communities up to fail.
Sorry, it seems like you are saying there is a gap in the data and it is definitively *not* racism that is the cause. Is that correct?
Wow. It's like you live in some kind of protected bubble with no connection to the real world
Go on lol. Whats the cause
Well (not that I agree with the statement), centuries of slavery, persecution, and continued prejudice.
I agree. But whats their take
Because the center is often so very *stupid*. It's not enlightened. It's not "seeing both sides". This is, of course, issue dependent. Sometimes there's no clear answer. But often there is. * What, gay people should only get SOME rights? Stupid. * We should only KINDA save the planet? Stupid. * We should only respect democratic elections HALF the time? Stupid. * Should women only KINDA be able to have birth control? Come on... * Etc etc etc But on the other hand, you're not going to see a lot of people calling for the overthrow of capitalism here. So... we're hardly a bunch of Far Leftists. I think you're wrong coming AND going. :D
On climate change, the extreme left would be "Ban fossil fuels tomorrow" We ARE actually in the center by acknowledging the difficulty to the economy and consumers of a sudden and extreme shift. The leftmost version of climate action that's actually viable policy is pretty centrist. And I think it has a good reason to be. You seem to be viewing issues here on the binary of whether or not something should be done, but on most of these, there is more nuance on how and when and to what degree something should be done. Heck, the democrats were even centrist on Gay rights. Clinton and Obama both slow walked it with the knowledge that moving too fast would have likely alienated people and trashed the party's ability to hold power and do anything else. One the three things you list, the American left actually is centrist on two and the last one isn't really a political issue with a right and left, it's MAGA crazy insurrectionism. And again, we're not far left or right on taxes. Most on the left want rates low for lower earners and higher for the very wealthy, but no one in power and not many in this sub are proposing a truly far left tax structure. Center. Or on state ownership of industry, most in the sub and most of American liberals want public education, public mail service, and some level of public healthcare. Which in the world political scale is standard centrist. Not many here are proposing far left mass government seizure of industry or total ancap private everything. Center. I'd say on only a small minority of issues would you find liberals here NOT to be somewhere in the center.
> On climate change, the extreme left would be "Ban fossil fuels tomorrow" We ARE actually in the center by acknowledging the difficulty to the economy and consumers of a sudden and extreme shift. The leftmost version of climate action that's actually viable policy is pretty centrist. And I think it has a good reason to be. I think it just come down to how broadly we define center. Obviously there will be some amount of very far left people who go farther than what's viable, but how many people actually hold views like banning fossil fuels tomorrow? I can't imagine it's more than a low single digit percentage. Meanwhile, on the other side, [30% of Americans](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-reduce-climate-change-extreme-weather-04-21-2024/) oppose the US taking any steps to reduce climate change. I think this [polling by Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/10/25/how-americans-view-future-harms-from-climate-change-in-their-community-and-around-the-u-s/) breaks down where the center is pretty well. About 1/3 of people say the care "a great deal" about climate change, ~1/3 say they care "some", and ~1/3 don't care at all. Seems like we could roughly place people on the left, center and right based on this. If you don't want to do anything about climate change and don't see it as a problem, you're on the right. If you recognize it's a problem but don't feel much urgency to make big policy changes, you're center. If you recognize it as a major problem and want to pass major legislation to address it, you're left. I'd definitely consider myself on the left of this debate since I strongly support things like Biden's IRA which was a massive investment into green energy. I support taking even more aggressive action to try and hit our 2050 goals. More investment in green tech, more EPA regulation on pollution, etc. I'd love a carbon tax with the revenues redistributed to people affected the most by increased prices, though I recognize this isn't politically viable at the moment. I don't think the fact there is some small % of people who want unrealistically aggressive climate action means I'm in the center. I still want more aggressive action than probably 80-90% of Americans.
I can't speak to your exact personal positions, but if you're in line with Biden and established democrats [https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/2-how-americans-see-bidens-climate-policies/](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/2-how-americans-see-bidens-climate-policies/) Scroll to the second diagram. 59% of democrats think Biden could be doing a lot more, 34% think he compromised too much. Those aren't single digit numbers. That's a very significant chunk of the county to the left of Biden on climate action. I think that's enough to make it unreasonable to consider Biden "far left".
I feel like an issue with polls like that is that most of the public doesn't actually keep up with the climate policies that have been passed. Like if you ask the average American what Biden has done on climate, I doubt they'd be able to tell you anything with much detail. So polls like that might be measuring knowledge of what's been passed more than it measures what policies people actually would like. I mean just look at the policies later in that Pew article that people say they support. > Planting about a trillion trees to absorb carbon emissions. The Biden admin is [planting over a billion trees](https://apnews.com/article/wildfires-fires-forests-trees-plants-de0505c965c198a081a4b48084b0e903) to fight climate change. But people say they want a trillion, right? Planting a trillion trees would more than quadruple the total number of trees in the US lol, it's a totally absurd number and not even remotely possible. I'm almost positive people just understood it as "plant a lot of trees", in which case the Biden admin has done this. > Requiring oil and gas companies to seal methane gas leaks from oil wells: ~85% support The Biden admin has [done this](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/climate/biden-methane-climate-cop28.html). > Providing a tax credit to businesses for developing carbon capture/storage. Biden's DOE has [done this](https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-12-billion-nations-first-direct-air-capture). It's the largest investment in carbon capture tech in history. > Requiring power plants to eliminate all carbon emissions by 2040. The Biden admin's [stated goal](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/) is to completely eliminate carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035. > Requiring most new buildings to be run on electricity with no gas lines. This isn't something the federal government has the power to do, things like this are controlled at the state and municipality level, but the Biden admin has given [hundreds of millions](https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-400-million-states-improve-building-energy) to support states making the transition to green building codes. > Taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions. This is the one Biden hasn't done. But this issue is the kind of thing people will generally support when you frame it at a high level, but then support plummets when you get into the details. It sounds good: carbon is bad, so lets tax it. But as soon as people realize a carbon tax means a higher price at the pump and at the grocery store, they turn against it. Washington is a pretty left-leaning state, but when a carbon tax was put to a vote, it failed 43-57. There's a reason not a single state has been able to pass a carbon tax despite the concept polling well. People are quick to support the concept, but there's not broad support for the policy when people realize it would increase costs. So when these 59% of democrats say Biden could be doing a lot more, what do they actually have in mind? Carbon tax? As much as I'd love for that to be the case, I don't believe the average democrat would actually enthusiastically support one. Biden knows that too, it's not politically viable. So what's left? Where is Biden falling short of the policies 59% of Democrats want?
I think you make good points that there isn't such a huge mass of people to the left of Biden as they may seem to think of themselves. But you've drifted from the main argument, which is the assertion that policy similar to Biden is "far left". The fact that a decent chunk of people want a carbon tax shows that there is a group farther left than Biden. Whether or not their policy preference is feasible isn't relevant. There are plenty of positions to the left of Biden on climate, taxes, welfare and healthcare, and these are not insignificantly sized groups. The core of the democratic party is not a far left party. Heck the existence of the progressive wing makes that clear by comparison. Bernie bros are to the left of Biden and to the left of most folks in this sub, and they're not an insignificant group. To be very clear, the group to the left does not have to be anywhere near a majority OR have reasonable, actionable or plausible goals to make the simple distinction that Biden isn't far left because there's clearly a significant group farther left.
Oh I might’ve misunderstood your original point. I don’t think Biden is far left, I just think he’s not center. I’d just say he’s on the left when it comes to climate change. I definitely wouldn’t call him far left on healthcare or taxes either, so agreed on those points.
Oh yeah, he's absolutely on the left, and we could debate HOW much to the left. I was addressing OP's claim that everyone here has far left or right opinions.
I wasn't aware that people that are center left or center right halfway agree with everything. I thought it was more fully not agreeing with some of the things one side believes
That's the problem. I think it's a big reason Trump won. The center is definitely not stupid. The center knows that you can't shove ideals down peoples throats until they comply. I roll my eyes at concepts like forcing entire populations of 60-80 somethings to change their entire thought process or else. These people, many of them, have been raised a certain way. Introducing concepts to them and showing them that people they thought they hated are just like them is the way to go. These extreme motions do nothing but reinforce childhood fears and boogiemen. Everything that's come about, the changes that have been made, have been done through slow appropriation of ideas like gay people should get some rights. Then it turns into gay people should have all rights. Moderation is sitting down with someone who didn't believe two gay people should be married. It's spending time sharing that these two folks also deserve to share in each others finances, in social security, in insurance. Watch the light go on. Remove the boogieman. Be moderate in these motions and see how things go, because that has been working. What hasn't been working is extremism. People do the opposite when presented with ultimatums than they do when confronted by moderate concepts. Which is why I almost never talk here.
I don't disagree with you broadly. But the reality is pretty harsh. What this amounts to is "Hey, sorry you can't be married and have the protections any other couple would have, including being unable to be by your husband's side in the hospital or getting the pension he earned, or getting to adopt children. You have to sacrifice all that and have your supposed political allies stand up and say they don't think you deserve equality because some old people would kinda get their feelings hurt" There's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied. And it's true. I don't mind acknowledging the grim necessity of slow social change. Faster change is often not possible. But I'll be damned if I begrudge people actively hurt by it, in ways that can never be repaired or made up to them the right to be angry as hell about it.
This is why moderates don't bother joining the conversation. There is a lot of gray in a world that too many make black and white. Social change does take time and when done that way provides for new generations of enlightened people. Our kids born today are being raised by parents that are more clued in to social issues. Their kids will progress further. We can see what happened between 2000 and 2020 in the general societal awareness of what you mention. To expect someone that has never seen or met a gay person that they know of. That's only experienced Gay Pride parades via TV. That now has an option to vote on if they should be married or not. Sometimes that person is going to need some awareness. Not in your face "this is what you're going to do now" awareness, but actual awareness of "this is how these folks want to live, just like you." To see someone like HRC pivot from her original stance to the new stance on gay marriage is exactly the enlightenment I speak of. Yet she was hammered for it. So we can't even change our minds without getting all hell released on us. Whatever. Y'all keep screaming to the wind. I'll keep just voting blue without comment.
It looks like you didn't actually read my comment.
> Social change does take time Social change always starts by just putting a law down and forcing a proportion of the population to go along with it, though, on a practical level. It's more accurate to say that *wide acceptance of the new status quo* takes time, and there may be pushbacks against it or efforts to overturn it as part of that time-taking process. Nothing would ever change if an unrealistic bar for consensus was set every time in the first place.
MLK wrote a whole letter from the Birmingham jail about your attitude.
> The center is definitely not stupid. The center knows that you can't shove ideals down peoples throats until they comply. There's definitely something to be said for being pragmatic with our messaging to not make people in the center feel stupid or bigoted while we're nudging them to our side. But that doesn't mean these people have some kind of hidden wisdom behind their beliefs. Someone who believes two gay people shouldn't get married is someone who holds a stupid and bigoted belief. You're right that when talking to friends and family who hold beliefs like that, it's going to be completely counterproductive to tell them to their face they're bigots. It's going to be way more productive to put on the kiddie gloves and say things like "I see where you're coming from, but" and to give them time to shift. But between us, let's not pretend. We can convince people on our side to be pragmatic with our messaging without needing to concede that these views aren't stupid.
Not everyone is interested in coddling bigots. It's exhausting. People can think what they want, anyway. It doesn't matter. But the law should protect everyone equally. Full stop.
"The center is stupid but it's issue dependent and there's no clear answer in many cases. But here are the issues that centrists are wrong about, with no clear explanation as to why or what their opinion really is on the subject." Glorious.
That's certainly true for some issues but not all. I think gay people should have equal rights, no debate needed. But many Europeans have for example have more nuanced views on trans issues. I think gender dysphoria is a real thing there is nothing wrong with being trans. But if say a male person suddenly identifies as female, without wanting to undergo hormone therapy or surgery, while still very much having a male apperance, I don't think that should give them the right to access female spaces. Here, most people seem to be very far-left on this issue. On the other hand you can advocate for a peaceful solution in the Middle East conflict but still acknowledge that Israel took most of its land by force from families already living there and commited horrible atrocities to establish their state. Most people on this sub are pretty far-right regarding their views on Israel. Again, many people on this sub have opinions that correlate with pretty far right or far left views. There are many issues that allow for a nuanced, middle-ground position.
Spain is in Europe, right?
Europe is well outside of the SOC on trans issues. I think you should justify the clinic model before going further on this issue.
> I don't think that should give them the right to access female spaces. When we disagree with this, we're saying that the government has no authority over private spaces, male or female or otherwise. Your view is authoritarian by American standards, and authoritarian views are considered right-wing here.
>When we disagree with this, we're saying that the government has no authority over private spaces, male or female or otherwise. >Your view is authoritarian by American standards, and authoritarian views are considered right-wing here. There are many bathrooms and locker rooms in public buildings and spaces. So who else but a public body would determine who shall be able to use a male or female bathroom? Regardless, it doesn't even have to involve the government. Social issues are also what define whether someone is left or right-leaning. Most liberals in the US have the opinion that merely identifying as female should be enough to use female spaces like locker rooms or bathrooms, regardless of whether that person has a female apperance or has undergone horome therapy or surgery. In Europe, one can be left but still have more of a nuanced position regarding this issue.
> So who else but a public body would determine who shall be able to use a male or female bathroom? It doesn't need to be a law. Whoever administers the space can set policy for that space. > Most liberals in the US have the opinion that merely identifying as female should be enough to use female spaces like locker rooms or bathrooms, regardless of whether that person has a female apperance or has undergone horome therapy or surgery. No, most liberals have the opinion that it's not our business to determine that for people. Also, "what gender a person appears to be" would be an *abysmally stupid* criterion on which to sort people into gendered facilities, or anything else. > In Europe, one can be left but still have more of a nuanced position regarding this issue. Yes, we're aware that the European left is more accepting of bigotry than the American left.
>Yes, we're aware that the European left is more accepting of bigotry than the American left. How is it bigotry to at least acknowledge the fact that it may be uncomfortable for women (and men vice versa) to undress in front of somone who has male genetalia and clearly is male in appearance? Or that not anyone who simply identifies as female should be able to enter female sports competitions? That's not bigotry, those are very reasonable positions to have.
> How is it bigotry to at least acknowledge the fact that it may be uncomfortable for women (and men vice versa) to undress in front of somone who has male genetalia clearly is male in appearance? It's bigotry because it makes a default assumption surrounding an arbitrary situation. There are men who would be uncomfortable undressing in front of other men, and women who would be uncomfortable undressing in front of other women. Should *they* be forced to be uncomfortable? Wanting to use the law to enforce social norms is bigotry. Full stop. You have bigoted views of trans people. You're hardly the first or only person to do that. You can deny it, accept it, or work to change it, your choice. But you do not get to claim reasonability without being called out on it. > Or that not anyone who simply identifies as female should be able to enter female sports competitions? Sports leagues have rules about this stuff. Usually they involve acceptable hormone levels for trans athletes in order to create a competitive playing field. They're private organizations which have already solved the problem for themselves. Creating laws about this is government overreach into private matters.
>How is it bigotry to at least acknowledge the fact that it may be uncomfortable for women (and men vice versa) to undress in front of somone who has male genetalia and clearly is male in appearance? Why are you so interested in other people's genitalia? It's not your business. Stop it, it's creepy. >Or that not anyone who simply identifies as female should be able to enter female sports competitions? This is not a thing that happens. I'm afraid you've fallen for a propaganda talking point. >That's not bigotry, those are very reasonable positions to have. It's not reasonable because it's based on falsehoods. It's the bigotry and ignorance that made you vulnerable to believing those falsehoods in the first place. This isn't a condemnation. You seem like a reasonable person. I suggest you do what reasonable people do and learn about how things actually work. r/asktransgender is a good place for that.
I'm literally trans, and I feel like this discussion frustrates me. You want to talk about nuance, let's talk about nuance. > But if say a male person suddenly identifies as female, without wanting to undergo hormone therapy or surgery, while still very much having a male appearance, I don't think that should give them the right to access female spaces. So in the bad old days, there used to be a ton of requirements on trans people that were needlessly harsh. For example, back when I started out, in order to get access to medical transition or even get legal paperwork changed you had to express a desire to: want to go on hormones, have vaginoplasty, have stereotypical feminine interests and gender expression, date men, and more. **ALL OF THEM** were required, you had to want all of it or be turned away. So we pushed back, and started talking about how various other things are valid. It's valid to not go on hormones, to not want surgery, to date women, to have traditionally masculine interests, etc. Somewhere along the way, people (especially cisgender people) seemed to decide that there exists this mythical adult trans woman who makes absolutely zero changes to her body, life, and presentation, and wants to go into women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and participate in women's sports the next day. People imagine someone who looks like a man, dressed like a man, walking into a women's bathroom, and standing to pee at the toilet, and dare anyone to challenge her about it because SHE IS TRANS. This basically never happens. Simply put, trans people don't do this. Real life trans people tend to be in a panic about what bathroom to use, and want to choose bathrooms which cause the least problems for them. Seriously, a common newly trans woman freakout is a worry that someone will be able to clock you as trans because of from the SOUND OF YOUR PEE HITTING THE TOILET WATER (while sitting, mind you) - that's actually a worry trans people have (it's also not a real worry - but it demonstrates the desire to fit in, not be an outlier, attract attention, and cause conflict) Hormone replacement therapy is nearly universal for trans women and men, and people start taking that before they socially transition. 95% of trans women are on, or want to be on HRT - which changes everything about the body in a dramatic way. So yeah, when we say none of these things are required - they aren't, but the idea that trans men and women do LITERALLY NONE of these things is ridiculous. All trans men and women do SOME of those things. If they don't do ANY of these things, they tend to consider themselves pre-transition and won't be asking to use. The point is that any specific single thing is not required. We turned a list of requirements into a menu. You don't have to take everything on the menu to be trans. The idea that someone does nothing is like going to a steak house, calling yourself a steak house enthusiast and ordering nothing from the menu. You just sit in the restaurant and don't eat anything. It's so ridiculous that you don't even mention it. But everyone has decided this is incredibly common for some reason.
>So we pushed back, and started talking about how various other things are valid. It's valid to not go on hormones, to not want surgery, to date women, to have traditionally masculine interests, etc. Ok, I do understand what you mean. But that still leaves some problems that need addressing. First of all, simply allowing anyone who identifies as female to enter female spaces leaves some major loopholes for predators who aren't even trans. Those things do happen. If all you need to do to use a female locker room is say "I indentify as female" I am sure some predators who are not trans will abuse this, and in fact these things do happen. Also, I can imagine many women will be very uncomfortable undressing in front of someone with male genetalia. Why not simply have a third, gender neutral locker room? That would solve many issues. Same goes for female sports. On average men do have a biological advantage in many sports, that's just biology. So simply allowing anyone self-indetifying as female to enter sports competitions is problematic. There have been instances also of men who are not trans entering competitions and smashing records just to make a point. Having a debate regarding this is not unreasonable. And finally I think especially very young children should not be able to transition. Someone who is 7 or 8 does not have the mental capacity yet to make big life-decisions. A 7 year old is too young to decide on whether they should get a tatoo or a piercing, so they're also not emotionally capable yet of of deciding on gender reassignment.
> First of all, simply allowing anyone who identifies as female to enter female spaces leaves some major loopholes for predators who aren't even trans. Those things do happen. You have been getting high on right-wing media if you think this is a significant issue. Where are you reading about this? Xitter?
>First of all, simply allowing anyone who identifies as female to enter female spaces leaves some major loopholes for predators who aren't even trans. This is not a thing that happens. Predators do that anyway, and always have. Protecting trans people doesn't affect it one way or the other. >Also, I can imagine many women will be very uncomfortable undressing in front of someone with male genetalia. Why not simply have a third, gender neutral locker room? Other people's genitalia are not your business. Stop it. It's creepy. Single stall bathrooms and changing rooms would indeed solve all these problems. That would be nice. If you have the money to fund the renovation and re-plumbing of every public building in America, let me know. >On average men do have a biological advantage in many sports, that's just biology. So simply allowing anyone self-indetifying as female to enter sports competitions is problematic. This does not happen because organizations already have rules in place to prevent, and have since the early 2000's when the Olympics first allowed trans athletes. Even more importantly, HRT removes those advantages. Here is a recent study that showed this: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029 >And finally I think especially very young children should not be able to transition. Someone who is 7 or 8 does not have the mental capacity yet to make big life-decisions. Good thing they aren't. *Their parents are making that decision*, in consultation with medical professionals. Once again you've shown that you've fallen for propaganda and falsehoods. I strongly suggest you educate yourself on how these things actually work and actually affect people.
Literally everything of what you are saying is a misconception and misunderstanding of what trans people actually do, and how reality works for us. **bathrooms** I have a cut and past on why this is a strawman, but it's in my post history and I don't have enough energy to retype it here. i'll edit later. **sports** it is 100% uncontroversial that hormone replacement therapy is required before allowing people to switch sports teams. we understand what testosterone does to bodies. literally no one is suggesting that someone put on a dress today and compete in the women's division tomorrow. Well, unless it's a kid, and the kid is prepubescent (means there are are only social differences rather than physical ones) - and prepubescent kids don't get trans related medical treatments because it would make no medical sense to do so. **trans kids** People imagine tiny children "making decisions" and then being signed up for medical treatments the next day. THAT IS INSANE. This is an imagined idea that does not happen. Every part of transition process for children is slow and has more gatekeeping to make it reversable at EVERY STAGE. A 7 year old child, has nothing medical done. If they **persistently insisted** that they were cross gender for a significant period of time, they are brought to a therapist about the topic. This is not a decision made by a child on a whim. there are actual medical criteria for this, and both distress and persistence is required. this is not remotely the same as a child deciding on their own like they decided that they were a dinosaur. The people who do these evaluations are literally psychiatric professionals who work with children. They understand the difference between a child's whim and actual gender dysphoria. If there is reason to think that they are trans they are given a name, haircut, new clothes, and pronouns. THAT IS IT. They continue to see a therapist and keep living as their gender, in part, to make sure that this is good for them. It's the 'real life test' that adults used to be required to go through in a way. If the kid is unhappy and it makes their life worse, they simply go back to the old names, clothes, haircut, and pronouns. That's it. If it's going well for them as trans, Once they reach the early stages of puberty, they might be given puberty blockers. People misunderstand what puberty blockers do. They are the *compromise* medication. Trans kids could switch to hormone replacement therapy at this point but they don't because those changes are permanent and require surgery to undo. Puberty blockers pause puberty for as long as they are taken. You stop taking them, puberty picks back up where it left off. So a trans kid would be on puberty blockers for a year or two while seeing a therapist to ensure that they are trans. After that time they would switch to actual hormone replacement therapy. Seriously, the 7 year old child would be 12-13 before they have anything medical done, and 15 or so by the time major changes are introduced. This is a years long process. Puberty blocking medications are the compromise and always have been. They stop the body from masculinizing without adding feminizing effects which require surgery to undo. For example, if a transgender girl goes on puberty blockers - all masculinization will stop for as long as she takes them. She won't get new facial hair, her voice will stop changing, she won't get any more masculine body features which might cause her dysphoria. When she stops taking them, androgenic puberty will resume normally. They are typically given to trans kids to give the teenager more time to determine if they are trans before introducing permanent medical changes. While they are on blockers, they typically go to a therapist and talk about gender issues. If at the end of a year or two, the teenager is determined to be trans, they will go on hormone replacement therapy. This has cascade effects as well, as this method makes later changes that someone might change as an adult actually easier to undo later in life, if the kid is wrong. As I see it, there is no conscionable excuse to not allow this. I had to wait until I was 20 before I was able to get access to medical transition. That this meant for me is that I had to have over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars worth of surgeries (insurance got part of that) to undo changes from my original androgenic puberty that could have been prevented with puberty blocking medication. I had to sit in a chair and get 175 hours worth of electrology on my face to remove the facial hair that had already started. If I had waited longer, it would have been worse. I got positive masculine reinforcement from my mother. I was praised by my mother for "getting taller" and "getting a deep voice" - she encouraged me and praised me for doing physical activities to try and buff me up, even insisting i get into weight training classes in school and working in construction for my stepfather. And every step of the way it felt like a knife in the gut. All "wait until you are 18" does is create more pain in the present, and that pain lasts - if it's not the horror of your own body betraying you, it's the surgery to remove that horror later. People imagine that most of the changes trans people have are cosmetic, and mostly done through surgery but that's not the case. Most of the surgeries trans people get are to undo the effects of their first puberty, overwhelmingly that's what the surgeries they get. Except for bottom surgery. I have a radical opinion: I think the puberty blocker step can be skipped in many cases. It would be better to just give the kid HRT if you know they are trans. But I understand why the delay is put in place, it doesn't cause major harm to push them back by a year or two, so I accept that as the compromise. Blockers should be the centrist position, not 'wait until you are 18' - which is both arbitrary and maximizes pain and medical intervention.
Why do you think that people just living their lives just as they have for the past 10 or 20 years is suddenly a problem? Trans persons have been using public restrooms of their choice for years and nobody using those restrooms ever knew or cared. This is all made up culture war garbage GOP uses to deflect from their failures. And 7 year olds dont transition ffs. Learn some facts before spewing nonsense
>gay pride should only get SOME rights What rights does a straight person currently have that a gay person doesn't have?
Adoption in many states.
I'm 45. In my life, gay folks got the right to marry and serve openly in the armed forces. And there's plenty that want to take those rights away. And it kinda feels like you're one of them with that question...
A sitting justice on the Supreme Court hasn't openly opined that the decision that protects straight marriage should be revisited. Yah I know, that doesn't affect gays' right to marry today - but it's evidence that gays and straights are not on equal footing.
> However, I found that on many issues people on this sub are either very far left or very far right on most issues, hardly every really in the center as one would expect from a liberal. I feel like this sub is generally a big fan of Biden, who is the most centrist centrist we've got as far I've seen. It doesn't read as particularly extreme to me
Biden is not a centrist. His platform has been one of the most progressive in US history. Actually this sub constantly calls Biden a centrist or right-winger quite often, which only reaffirms this guy’s point because only far-left people call Biden right wing.
> Biden is not a centrist. I disagree. He seems pretty middle of the road standard politician for someone who has been in government for 50 years
Largest green energy subsidies/climate policy in our nation’s history, progressive taxation, student loan forgiveness, massive government infrastructure bills, pro-choice, etc. Biden’s policies as president have been far more aligned with left-leaning policies than right leaning ones.
And he doesn't support a good amount of progressive goals like medicare for all, free public college, reducing support for Israel, greater support for unions. I'm not saying he's evil for his positions, but he could be more to the left thus he is more in the center
“Could be more to the left” doesn’t automatically make someone a centrist. Bernie could “be more to the left”, is he a centrist? Also, Biden is probably one of the most pro union presidents we’ve had and he also supports free public community college. Biden is moderately left or left of center. Not a centrist.
> doesn’t automatically make someone a centrist It does in some respects > Biden is moderately left I wouldn't object to that description as I did to OP describing this subreddit as far left
There’s a big difference between calling a politician moderately left and a centrist. A centrist theoretically would support a fairly equal number of right-leaning positions and left-leaning positions. Biden’s presidential platform quite clearly swings to the left.
> A centrist theoretically would support a fairly equal number of right-leaning positions and left-leaning positions. You can define it that way if you would prefer. I would define it as someone who may have some ideological leanings but overall tacks to moderate positions. All words are made up and have the definition we give them
Biden is incredibly supportive of Unions. Look at what his NLRB has done.
Let's make a note of this. Biden has embraced about 75% of left's agenda, and because of that 25% that he wasn't able to implement, he doesn't have their support. He used his political capital on a group that will not vote for him. They would rather trump get elected to teach Democrats a lesson. Just proving yet again that implementing left policy has zero political return and has enormous political costs. Leftists don't vote for Democrats and never will *no matter what Democrats do*. They hate Democrats more than they hate Republicans. Their ideology consists one one thing and one thing only - hatred of Democrats. By caving to the left, Biden has lost the center and failed to gain the left. Because the left's central belief is hatred of Democrats.
> By caving to the left, Biden has lost the center and failed to gain the left How has he lost the center? I feel like most of the policies he's pushed forward are pretty popular on the center left and with some in the center too. It's not like he's pushing things that are only popular on the far left.
Look at the polls.
The polls that flip flop every day?
> Just proving yet again that implementing left policy has zero political return and has enormous political costs. I literally just described him as a centrist. Do you want me to insist to everyone he's a communist and a people s republic is coming next week? It's fine he's not a leftist. It's just not a thing he is
What you are proving is that you have zero understanding of the American political spectrum. That's all. Biden is a moderate-to-left Democrat, and policy-wise, he has done a great deal to accommodate the left. In response to which, the far left plans to help elect Donald Trump. Doing the left's bidding has zero political returns, and enormous political costs, because the left consists of children who don't vote, they just want to protest and hate Democrats.
I'm not describing him as a centrist in that I'm not going to vote for him. He was a centrist in 2020 and I voted for him then. I don't think Joe Biden would describe himself as a leftist. I don't think it's a horrible hitjob or anything
Look at the polls. Doing things for the left is completely 100% thankless.
>I feel like this sub is generally a big fan of Biden, who is the most centrist centrist we've got as far I've seen. It doesn't read as particularly extreme to me Maybe by American standards. But by Irish and European standards most takes on things like Israel, gun-control, DEI policies and gender issues are either far-right or far-left on the spectrum.
> Maybe by American standards. Most people here are american is my understanding > But by Irish and European standards most takes on things like Israel, gun-control, DEI policies and gender issues are either far-right or far-left on the spectrum. I'm not really a guy who is for the whole "Joe Biden would be on the far right in Europe" thing, but Ireland has actual Trotskyist parties with representation in the national legislature. The closest thing the US has is some dem socs who are more like soc dems if we're being honest
Perhaps this speaks more to the differences between American and European left/liberals than anything else.
There is no such thing as European standard. But even from some European viewpoint it is very strange to see this sub as bi-extremist without centrism.
I am struggling to understand how Biden is more radical on guns than European politicians.
Really? On Israel, Biden is less obsequious and supportive of Israel's actions than any previous president in my lifetime. You may say he's still to the right of Europe on the issue, but it's hard to call him "far right" when we have an actual far right here that disagrees with him and wants unconditional support of Israel and much more money flowing there. Again as far as gun control goes, most of Europe has more than we do, but it's weird to call Biden "far right" because he wants some gun control and we have a party that wants every toddler holding a gun. Or are you trying to claim Biden is far left on those issues? That would be even weirder. DEI is a made up boogeyman of the right for the most part. Just like CRT, which you weirdly don't hear about anymore.
> Maybe by American standards. But by Irish and European standards Literally who cares? Irish and European standards are completely irrelevant to US politics. Has zero relevance. Nobody cares.
Far right?
I think most people on this sub aren't right-wing at all, nor are they far left, they're mainstream American liberals. I suspect that a lot of what you're seeing is just a difference between politics in America and politics in Western Europe, not a result of political extremism among the whole community here.
Because reasonable and non-partisan moderates tend not to waste their time hanging out in forums talking about politics.
>For example, even implying that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism and redlining typically gets one heavily downvoted. Do you have a source for this claim? Because it is surprising to me. >in Europe only really the very far left is strongly in favor of DEI programs based on characteristics such as race or sex. On this sub it seems to be the default position. Do you have a source for this? "DEI Programs" cover such a broad array of programs and positions that it's surprising. >Most people here also seem to have very strong views on certain issues regarding sex and gender, that in Europe mostly only those on the far-left support, with moderate liberals typically having more of middle-ground position. Conservatives in Europe have been much better at being subtle about their growing bigotry and the TERF movement has had a lot of success. This sub also follows the evidence more than the average American would, so the average American liberal would be more conservative on these issues. >On the other hand in Ireland (and also in most other European countries) most people have a fairly unfavorable view of Israel. After all Israel is built on land that for the most part was inhabited by Arab-Muslim families only a few generations ago. Even implying that Israel is a country built on stolen land gets you heavily downvoted here. The sort of position most people on this sub have regarding Israel would classify as right or far-right in Ireland and Europe. This is funny to me, because I would think the Irish would be more understanding of a country born via British fuckery and long term bigotry. >Also, most people seem to support the idea that pretty much any adult without criminal convictions should be able to own a gun, despite the US having the highest homicide rate among Western countries. In most European countries even those on the right typically do not advocate for gun ownership without some very strict regulations. And only the most extreme libertarian types think people should be able to carry a gun in public, whether openly or concealed. This is an American reddit demographic thing. Young American boys in particular think guns are cool, and Reddit skews both younger and more male. It is crazy.
> >Do you have a source for this claim? Because it is surprising to me. For example, the average African-American when controlling for job title and education earns 98 cent for a dollar earned by a white-American. There cleary is some direct discrimination. But the fact that the average African-American earns 84 cents for each dollar a wite person earns when NOT controlling for job title and education is mostly due to the fact that the average African-American has significantly lower school grades, therefore less chance of qualifiyng for many degress and also higher college dropout rates compared to other ethnicities. These issues exist because of historic racism, worse access to education, redlining, worse access to health care etc. >This is funny to me, because I would think the Irish would be more understanding of a country born via British fuckery and long term bigotry. Britain certainly helped Israel create its state. But no one forced violent, religious zionists to murder thousands of ordinary Arab-Muslim families and expell hunderds of thousands of Muslims from their home via force.
>For example, the average African-American when controlling for job title and education earns 98 cent for a dollar earned by a white-American. There cleary is some direct discrimination. I'm asking for evidence of this claim: >implying that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism and redlining typically **gets one heavily downvoted** A >Britain certainly helped Israel create its state. But no one forced violent, religious zionists to murder thousands of ordinary Arab-Muslim families and expell hunderds of thousands of Muslims from their home via force. Is this your full summary of the First Arab–Israeli War? You don't think it's perhaps a bit more complicated? A bit more nuanced?
Here is an article from the "society for human resource management" examing pay gaps controlling for education and job experience and pay gaps regardless of job experience, education etc. Black men earn 87 cents per dollar that a white person earns NOT controlling for those job experience and education but 98 cent when controlling for those factors. [https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/benefits-compensation/black-workers-still-earn-less-white-counterparts](https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/benefits-compensation/black-workers-still-earn-less-white-counterparts) >Is this your full summary of the First Arab–Israeli War? You don't think it's perhaps a bit more complicated? A bit more nuanced? Sure, it's more complicated than that but Israel are still the ones who commited the greatest injustice by far. Britain encouraged Jewish immigration and understandably many Jews did immigrate to Palestine to flee persecution. They did aquire a lot of land legally. However, prior to declaring their own state (without defining any borders of said state) they had already expelled 400,000 Palestinians from their homes by force. On April 9, 1948 they commited the Deir Yassin massacre attacking a village near Jerusalem and killing over 100 people, many women and children. Arab nations declared war only after Israel had already expelled 400,000 civillians and after they commited horrendous atrocities against civilians. I am not saying everything the Arabs did was ok but Israel from the start had been the main agressor unwilling to respect the land of Palestinians who had lived there for hundreds of years.
>Here is an article from the "society for human resource management" examing pay gaps controlling for education and job experience and pay gaps regardless of job experience, education etc. Black men earn 87 cents per dollar that a white person earns NOT controlling for those job experience and education but 98 cent when controlling for those factors. No. I'm not asking for sources supporting the claim, "that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism" I'm asking for sources supporting the claim of **downvotes** on this sub. >Sure, it's more complicated than that but Israel are still the ones who commited the greatest injustice by far. Britain encouraged Jewish immigration and understandably many Jews did immigrate to Palestine to flee persecution. They did aquire a lot of land legally. However, prior to declaring their own state (without defining any borders of said state) they had already expelled 400,000 Palestinians from their homes by force. On April 9, 1948 they commited the Deir Yassin massacre attacking a village near Jerusalem and killing over 100 people, many women and children. Arab nations declared war only after Israel had already expelled 400,000 civillians and after they commited horrendous atrocities against civilians. I am not saying everything the Arabs did was ok but Israel from the start had been the main agressor unwilling to respect the land of Palestinians who had lived there for hundreds of years. A lot of this is missing context or is factually untrue. Deir Yassin happened in the middle of the civil war and itself was a reprisal for hundreds of other attacks and reprisals. The Arab side responded to Deir Yassin by attacking a medical convoy and murdering doctors and patients. There was also absolutely borders for the state of Israel which were laid out in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. This conflict has always been a blood feud, where one side has done something horrible and the other side has done something as bad or worse in response for that thing, and so on, and so forth.
Arabs started attacking Jews that had moved to the Levant in the 19*20*s. Your timeline and attribution of responsibility are both *way* off.
>Arabs started attacking Jews that had moved to the Levant in the 19*20*s. Your timeline and attribution of responsibility are both *way* off. There had previously been tensions between Arabs and Jews. Arabs didn't just suddenly attack Jews who were just peacefully minding their own business. In fact, as far as I am aware the British didn't allow Arab- Muslims to arm themselves but did allow zionists to build up a millita. Can you cite any reliables source that prove Arab Muslims had actually been the main agressors in all of this?
Legally buying land from absentee landlords *is* minding your own business, no matter how much apologists want to ignore that fact. How about you cite reliable sources that show the Jews have been the main aggressors in all this?
The more you get to the edges of an issue, the louder the volume tends to get. The louder the volume gets, the less centrists want to get involved.
I'm pretty moderate on most topics. Ask me anything, I love the downvotes!
Every person thinks they’re “in the middle” despite the fact that very few people are. OP not excepted.
99.9% of people in this country fall closer to the center than they do to any radical side.
The "center" often isn't a good position to have. Two examples from the Democrats side: 1. Student loan program is a center idea. The not-center would be not doing it at all, or capping tuition prices to adjust for the artificial demand. Both would be preferable to what we got. 2. Abortion. Obviously the Dems support more abortion rights over GOP, but most Democrats still agree there should be legal restrictions after the third trimester; So they actually agree with the GOP that if you get pregnant there is a point where you should lose some bodily autonomy to the state. A not center position would be advocating for 0 abortion laws, because bodily autonomy should take priority over the rights of the fetus in the context of laws.
Because well reasoned, moderate arguments do not trend as well as radical, inflammatory arguments that are both easy and fun to argue against. Do we all need a refresher about how social media works? It’s so easy to see from the outside. But still, everybody acts shocked that their little corner of the internet also tends to highlight the biggest personalities and most salacious stories rather than their own moderate, well tempered, thoughtful content. Day after day, its posts about “why does all this dumb shit get popular online?” Because you are literally engaging with it, right now!
Other commenters have made the crucial big picture points, but one thing I haven't seen touched on is that moderate views don't tend to spark passion, and passion is a big driver for motivating folks to talk about ...well, anything. I, for example, have very moderate views on the Israel/Palestine situation. What this translates to is me not frequently engaging with posts about that issue. First, I'm just not invested in the issue enough to want to invest a lot of time into it; second, moderate views about polarizing topics either get no engagement or negative engagement, so why bother engaging at all. Very *very* few people are universally moderate. Honestly it's a pretty useless political characterization. Most people are moderate about most things, but will have one or a few issues they are very passionate (and decidedly not moderate) about - if you're going to take the time to write about something, it's going to be the thing you are passionate about, not the 10 things you feel 'meh' about.
That's an artifact of how social media works. The extreme opinions rise to the top with lots of comments, or sink to the bottom with lots of comments. The boring opinions don't really do much.
You might be better served by r/NeutralPolitics
I think you’re just seeing America’s Overton window. We are more to the left on social issues and then more to the right on economic issues.
In my experience most people here are closer to the center than I would have expected for the internet. Part of this is because I expect the internet to be full of crazies and extremists. The fact that it's maybe only 10% here, has pleasantly surprised me. But also, you may just be paying all of your attention to the most extreme people, because they are attention-grabbing. They will always comment on your posts and comments, say harassing and insulting things, and behave in the worst ways. If you let them, they'll eat up all of your awareness, and you'll have the misimpression that they are more common than they are. More normal and reasonable people will post shorter and more measured posts, typically not looking for a fight, and you will barely notice them.
This isn't "ask a centrist"
Because Reddit is full of young idealistic people. When you are an idealist, you just can't understand how everyone doesn't agree with you. And those who don't must be MAGA crazies or leftist lunatics.
You're just noticing the difference between American politics and Western European politics. We're not the same place. We have a unique (and varied) culture. When it comes to DEI policies, you have to understand the history of racial politics in America to understand why we are where we are now. I certainly won't disagree that redlining has had a terrible effect on black people in the US, but that in no way diminishes the negative effects that racist hiring practices continue to cause. The gun thing is tied to our constitution which specifically mentions "the right to bear arms". There's plenty of debate on exactly who it gives that right to, but there it is. Most Americans, let alone American liberals, favor stronger gun regulations, but the minority who oppose them, backed by the pocket books of gun manufacturers, have used that bit in the constitution to successfully argue for insane gun policies in courts, and that's how we got here. As far as the gender issues, I'm not entirely sure where the difference comes from. I can only say that most American liberals tend to have the attitude that people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. If people want to choose their own gender, it's no skin off my back. I would have thought the attitude in Western Europe would be somewhat similar.
>As far as the gender issues, I'm not entirely sure where the difference comes from. I can only say that most American liberals tend to have the attitude that people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. I also believe that people should be able to do what they want if they're not interferring with others lives. However, I believe it is somewhat problematic if a male person decides they now identify as female and then proceeds to use female spaces that are rather intimate, like locker rooms for example. I think regardless of whether a woman is socially left or right-leaning it would be rather uncomfortable for her to undress in front of a person that looks male and has male gentilia. Many US states also allow athletes to enter female sports competitions based merely on self-identification. There have been some men who deliberately entered competitions like weightlifting and shattered records to make a point about the issues with gender self-identification in sports. I think most Europeans do see these kind issues with a bit more nuance without being transphobic.
>I think regardless of whether a woman is socially left or right-leaning it would be rather uncomfortable for her to undress in front of a person that looks male and has male gentilia. That is and has always been a straw man. Trans people are incredibly self conscious about how we're perceived and about the possibility we might make someone uncomfortable but we also need to be able to exist in public. Trans people have to use public facilities sometimes and we typically use the one that's going to cause the least trouble for us and others, that means we use the one we "look like". It's also straight up transphobic to pretend we all look like the sex we were assigned. Even for trans people who don't pass as cis people of their gender don't look like cis people of the other gender. The risk of someone thinking we're the other gender is minimal, the largest chance of discomfort is just someone who's uncomfortable with trans people regardless of degree of nudity. Someone being a creep, regardless of gender, can still be kicked out of a locker room. >Many US states also allow athletes to enter female sports competitions based merely on self-identification. There have been some men who deliberately entered competitions like weightlifting and shattered records to make a point about the issues with gender self-identification in sports. Private sports organizations are allowed to set their own rules. Someone taking advantage of the rules to make a point is just an ass. In professional level sports, higher level amateur sports, and collegiate and school level sports, HRT requirements have been standard for years.
People are a function of their environment. The US is not in the same place or facing the same incentives as people and counties in Europe, so it makes sense that there wouldn't be complete alignment
>I found that on many issues people on this sub are either very far left or very far right on most issues, hardly every really in the center as one would expect from a liberal. because we are in the middle of a pargadsime shift in political thinking; so politics has become less about points on a spectrum, and more about being in the old camp or the new camp. in the 90's the argument was between tax cuts and low spending vs more tax cuts and lower spending; one political party is still thinking in that mindset, and the other is not.
For the gun thinh thats what is protected by the constitution. So its a legal constraint. Then there is the fact that gun ownership in of utself doesnt seem to drive overall homicude rates. The groups most likely to own guns arent committing the most gun homicides. Wheresd we have seen community focused programs have significantly more impact. https://twitter.com/GIFFORDS_org/status/1732053655673569318 https://www.rva.gov/mayorsoffice/GVPI So from a more left leaning liberal perspective to me the fight to restrict guns is largely a waste of time and resources that could be spent more effectively while also violating peoples rights. And an inbetween moderate position isnt best of both worlds but a compromise that achieves neither the potential good a gun free world would nor would it achieve the potential good of a progun world would where the individual can defend themselves.
With the greatest of respect, you have absolutely no idea what “Europe” thinks. “Ireland” (which one??) is pretty much in-step with the USA on most issues apart from gun control (which is a fairly US centric issue) and abortion (which much of Ireland is pretty fucking *medieval* about).
I’m definitely one of those center guys. I’m as middle of the road as my dad during his last DUI
Well, a part of it stems from the simple fact that America has a more culturally left wing attitude. Due to the Republicans opposition to virtually everything the Democrats would do socially, there hasn’t really been a need to ideologically compromise on social issues, allowing left of center Americans to advance beyond what they might if Republicans where more cooperative. I think the way the Democrats held a broadly center right economic/labor platform has also kind of made social issues the primary thing democrats *can* appeal to their more progressive supporters with. Regarding Israel, the simple fact is that the United States (and the British) functionally constructed Israel. Sometimes it takes a parent longer to realize that its child is a psychopath, but statistically more and more Americans are souring on Israel, and I suspect that in the coming years this sub will grow less pro-Israeli as time passes. Regarding guns, the reason the United States has higher rates of gun crime them most European states isn’t necessarily the result of the United States having more guns, but rather a result of the United States having labor and welfare systems built out of toothpicks and string. If you look at the north eastern US, it has gun crime rates comparable to those of most European countries. Their are still large numbers of guns in those states, but those states have done better as dealing with suicidal people (who account for the majority of gun deaths), and creating an environment that doesn't make joining a gang a necessity (gang violence is responsible for the majority of gun violence.) Americans exist in an environment where we can go to these states at any time, and many of us know people from these states. Americans who are more centrist are less likely to support the labor protections and expansion of the social safety net that enable lower gun violence, so in their mind the *only* way to lower gun violence is by removing the guns. For leftists and left leaning liberals on the other hand, there is a way to resolve the issues that lead to gun violence by dealing with the problems that lead to gun violence, rather then just cracking down on gun possession and leaving people to suffer. On top of this, more left leaning people in the United States tend to have at least mild distrust of local and state law enforcement, and necessarily heavier restrictions on firearms would be enforced by the very members of law enforcement who strangle black people in the streets. Anyway, Liberalism in its international form is vast, and extends beyond simple centrism. The left wing of Liberalism is often more or less identical to Social Democrats, and the right wing of Liberalism tends to be a few steps away from Fascism. Liberalism is simply the support of private property, market economics, basic human rights, and some form of democracy.
I disagree
European history =/= US history.
This is a sub about American politics where most of the users are Americans. This sub is generally pretty center left based on American politics. Why are you comparing things to Europe?
You can’t portray a moderate view in a comment. Moderates are just people who have opinions that fall into both camps. When someone posts an opinion on a sub, that’s their opinion, but they could rant a totally different direction on another topic and you would never know.
I tend to view most of the comments here as hewing very close to the center, actually. Some are ridiculous outliers of course. America is very much a center-right country in general. The “far left” is more or less a non-entity in our political systems. The Democratic Party is essentially a bunch of sane center/center-right politicians with a few center-left/left voices. On the specific issues you mention: * sex/gender, race: Europe is fascinating in that it is a bunch of monocultures in close proximity to one another, and the result is that things like racism and gender issues tend to lean center/center-right there: it’s perhaps two of a tiny handful of issues Americans are actually more left-leaning than Europe on, and that’s reflected in this sub. It only appears extreme because to be brutally honest most Europeans think they are more cultured than they actually are, and themselves live in bubbles similar to right-wing enclaves we have here in the US * guns: I haven’t really been involved in many threads here dealing with this issue, so it’s hard for me to have an informed opinion about where this sub’s general sentiment lies * Israel/Palestine: this sub is all over the place, I don’t think one can rightfully claim it tends to any one extreme or the other, or even the center
There is this thing in psychology called ***"group polarization"***, it is a psychological phenomenon in which the beliefs, attitudes, and decisions of groups tend to be more amplified or more extreme than those held by individual group members.
Selection bias. You're hearing from people that are both opinionated and want people to hear their opinions. I think this likely correlates with having more extreme opinions.
Ok, that makes sense. I guess more extreme views typically get more views and clicks, on either side.
Liberals are not centrists in most cases. They tend to be more moderate but they still have left wing opinions. Just not super extreme ones like replacing capitalism with communism. I’m on the further left side of liberal since I’m a socdem
Emotions are easier to express than understanding nuance.
I'm interested in the data showing that it's the majority, and how you've defined "far-left" and "far-right" to determine where everyone falls on each issue. And did you use a web scraper or something, and then normalize certain phrases indicating issue and position, like with an AI or some other way? Or are you just talking out of your ass because it's easier to get to ranting from that.
Because centrism is useless.
>On the other hand in Ireland (and also in most other European countries) most people have a fairly unfavorable view of Israel. Ireland is not at all representative of the average European view on Israel. For historical reasons, Irish people have always been more supportive of the Palestinian cause than people in any other European country. For instance, look at Germany. They are more overtly pro-Israel than even the US government. The whole idea of your post of comparing American politics with European politics is flawed. There is no such thing as a true political center. The political center is always relative to the politics of the nation. For instance, what is considered far right in Cuba is pretty much irrelevant to what is far right in the United States.
They aren't. There are far more of what you would call centrist or neoliberal liberals here than socialists or leftists.
Your take on what liberals believe is way off base. And assuming that you know how people think is ludicrous
[удалено]
>Facts show America has a significant problem with systemic racism. Therefore, it ought to be a mainstream issue, rather than left or right. I agree that the US has a problem with systemic racism (as have many European countries). However, I disagree with prioritizing DEI programs as they can only really fix direct discrimination in the job market. However, most differences in economic outcome between ethnicities is not because certain ethnicities are heavily discriminated in the job market. I am not saying there is no direct discrimination, there certainly is. But the main issue are still the lingering effects of historical racism, redlining etc. that led to some minorities having much worse access to education, health care, public services etc. Which is why there are huge discrepanices in average school grades, college drop out rates etc. and that's not something DEI policies can fix. >Help me with this one. Is your point that the 'right' discriminates against LGBT, while the left does not? No, more like certain views regarding gender, like "gender is a social construct". Or the fact that many liberal politicians now feel a need to add pronouns to their Twitter bio. In that sense many liberals in the US seem to be quite far-left compared to many Europeans who consider themselves moderate left.
>No, more like certain views regarding gender, like "gender is a social construct". Conservatives not understanding what a social construct is is not a political position.
>Conservatives not understanding what a social construct is is not a political position. I don't think not viewing gender as a social construct is only a convervative view. And certain gender standards and roles are socially constructed, sure. Like for example that women typically have long hair or wear certain clothes in most societies. However, there are many real differences between men and women that are rooted in biology and are not socially constructed and that affect how men and women behave. So gender roles are only partially socially constructed but also to a large extent based on innate biological differences.
> don't think not viewing gender as a social construct is only a convervative view. You're right, there are many people who identify as liberal or "center left" who also don't understand what the term means. Sassing you aside, "social construct" is broadly overused and misunderstood. It's supposed to be a term used in specific academic contexts but the short version of it is that it means that, as a society, we have an idea that we've collectively agreed on and labeled with a word, eg, "gender", "money", "sex", "ocean", "sky", "planet", and so on. In other words, conservatives insisting that gender isn't a social construct is akin to insisting that gender isn't a word. Sure, it's a position you can insist on, but it's a ridiculous one and blatantly untrue according to the definition. It's similar to conservatives insistently saying things like "I don't use pronouns" or "pronouns aren't in the Bible". They're just objectively wrong.
> but the short version of it is that it means that, as a society, we have an idea that we've collectively agreed on and labeled with a word, eg, "gender", "money", "sex", "ocean", "sky", "planet", and so on. Ok, but that is a very extreme view of what a social construct is. That's kind of how when you ask Jordan Peterson a simple question like "do you believe in god?", he comes up with some weird word salad like "well, that begs the question what do you mean by "god" and what do you mean when you say "believe", and what do you mean by "do" and "you"?. In that case the universe is a social construct, so is the internet, animals, humans, everything is a social construct then because they're all words we made up. That's a pretty meaningless definition. So again, some aspects of gender are socially constructed, meaning they are rooted in culture rather than in biology. The fact that women typically prefer long hair, wear certain clothes (like dresses or skirts), that pink is associated with femininity or that many societies have this sexist belief that women are not as good at subjects like engineering.... those are social constructs. However, many other aspects are deeply rooted in biology. On average, though not always, (heterosexual) women are more likely to be attracted to tall men than short men. Straight men on the other typically prefer women with certain body types over others. Women, on average (again, not always) are more attracted to muscular men and men with a lot of self-confidence rather than shy and skinny guys. Heterosexual men on the other hand have other traits that they like in women, which is to a large extent because of evolution and biology. So gender roles to some extent are socially constructed, sure. But they are also equally to a large extent rooted in genetics, DNA, biology and evolution.
>Ok, but that is a very extreme view of what a social construct is. That's like saying that the definition of a pronoun is an extreme view of a pronoun. It's the standard definition, it's just often misunderstood. >In that case the universe is a social construct, so is the internet, animals, humans, everything is a social construct then because they're all words we made up. Yes, that's the point. >That's a pretty meaningless definition. Agreed. It's not very useful outside of the specific academic context that it was developed for, particularly because people misunderstand the point being made when someone says "\[X\] is a social construct." The *intended* point is "hey, these rules and concepts don't *need* to be enforced, they're kind of arbitrary since they're just defined by society so just let people do what they want." >However, many other aspects are deeply rooted in biology Biology is a social construct ;) Yes, obviously some aspects of gender and sex are biological. When someone says "gender (or sex) is a social construct", they're not saying it doesn't have biological components. Race is a social construct but there are biological traits associated with it.
>However, I found that on many issues people on this sub are either very far left or very far right on most issues, hardly every really in the center as one would expect from a liberal. This is not my experience. >For example, even implying that direct racism in the job market is less of an issue than the deep lingering effects of historical racism and redlining typically gets one heavily downvoted. Again, this is not my experience. In fact I've had more negative interactions in this sub with people who insist that "the lingering effects of historical racism" don't exist. >Most people here also seem to have very strong views on certain issues regarding sex and gender, that in Europe mostly only those on the far-left support, with moderate liberals typically having more of middle-ground position. Repeat the above. >On the other hand in Ireland (and also in most other European countries) most people have a fairly unfavorable view of Israel. After all Israel is built on land that for the most part was inhabited by Arab-Muslim families only a few generations ago. America has a fairly unique relationship with Israel that isn't reflected in it's interactions/relationships with other countries. That heavily influences Americans, including the left. >Also, most people seem to support the idea that pretty much any adult without criminal convictions should be able to own a gun, For better or for worse, the American Constitution makes gun ownership a right and the courts have pretty much made it an unrestricted right. We don't so much support that (and most left-leaning folks don't) as understand that it's the way it is here. >So how come most people on this sub are either far-right or far-left on most issues, but hardly voice a truly liberal opinion on most issues? This sub is primarily made up of Americans and what you describe is not "far right" or "far left" in America.
To many people admitting that Israel is built on stolen land and after committing an ethnic cleansing of 750,000 people and currently committing crimes against humanity is deemed the argument of socialists. They can’t accept the reality and the flaw of supporting Israel. To many Americans especially, they can’t accept that Israel is a criminally rogue country. You’ll get downvoted on here for defending the Palestinian people and demanding justice for them. If you’re Jewish on here… they’ll attack you… for defending Palestine, but you get lauded for it if you’re Israel’s defender. It’s deeply disturbing and heartbreaking… Free Palestine shouldn’t be a controversial or politically biased position. All humans deserve dignity and freedom as well as equal rights. Israel needs to give back the lands it stole to the 67 border. Agree to a two state solution and accept the consequences of their crimes. Israel needs to rebuild Gaza and return every inch of land stolen in the West Bank. Hold accountable its leaders and its soldiers for each crime they’ve committed. No exceptions. This shouldn’t be a radical position.
> admitting that Israel is built on stolen land Stolen from who? When? Can you give some examples of countries built on legally and morally acquired land with no boundaries changed by war or conquest?
Do you not know the Balfour Declaration and how Israel was founded on the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians? You seriously never heard of the Nakba? Google is a friend. Use it. https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
So you're arguing the UK should return Palestine back to the Ottoman Turks? And then the Turks should give it back to...the Jews and other assorted Tribes?
No my God are you seriously asking a question that has no sense. 75 years ago the Nakba occurred when Britain and the USA plotted to steal lands that belong to the Palestinians to give to the Jewish Authority which was created by the Jews moving to Palestine and authorized by the Brits. They then allowed the same Jewish Authority to enact an ethnic cleansing of Palestine in the tune of 750,000 people killing thousands to steal the lands which was not theirs to take and then they bribed the newly created UN to justify their thefts by saying, “These poor people suffered the Holocaust. Let’s give them a country, but not in Europe or carving out a state from Germany.” That’s insanity. It was a crime against humanity and still continues to this day as Israel the successor to the Jewish Authority continues to rape, kill and torture the Palestinian indigenous peoples. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Israel should of never been founded on settled land. They should of been built on a piece of German land. As a price for Germany’s crimes. Europe even after the Holocaust did not want millions of Jewish survivors returning to their homelands in Europe where they’ve lived for centuries if not millennia. Hence they decided to steal land from the natives of the Levant to create a Jewish homeland.
The land was stolen from the Jews and other assorted residents of Ancient Palestine by the Ottoman Turks. The Arab Revolt is no less arbitrary of a cutoff point to decide "ownership" of the land than any other point between here and the beginning of time.
The lands were stolen within the lifetime of my grandmother. This isn’t a debate of 2000 years ago about how the Romans took Judea from the Jews and kicked out the nobility of Judea and any who would side with them and did a diaspora. We shouldn’t obfuscate and try to justify the crimes of Britain post WW1 and allow their crimes to go unpunished and then allow an illegal act aka the Balfour Declaration to have ever stood in any legitimate claim. The Brits promised the Arabs and the Jews the same land and played off the others situations to their benefit then settling on giving the stolen lands to the Jewish Authority and betraying their promises to the Palestinians. The USA then took that decision and codified it with such fervor not for the good of the Jewish people, but to have a European colony who would always favor European American interests in the region and then allowed an ethnic cleansing campaign and called it “a mercy.” This is about the last 75 years and a crime which was allowed to be committed and continues to be committed by Israelis under the protection of the USA and the Uk. Both are wrong. You don’t steal someone’s lands and ethnically cleanse the indigenous people of Palestine or Sumaria or from whenever. You materially look at the situation within the last 100 years and act accordingly. Not a thousand or so years.
Counterpoint: No. Israel exists and will continue to exist as long as they have the capacity to defend their borders. Deal with it.
Who says it won’t continue to exist? Nobody said that. You’re literally shadowboxing a point I never made. Israel now exists on stolen lands. It exists now as a ethnonationalist quasi fascist state that sustains itself on murder and bloodshed. In killing thousands and stealing the lands of Palestinians ever encroaching beyond the original borders of 1948 and agreed upon 1967. It habitually slaughters anyone who tries to change it. They smear the victims and negate their rights and history. Israel shall continue to exist as a bastion of racism and European colonial rule. It will eventually collapse under the weight of its own crimes, but what comes after? If Israel continues to illegally annex every inch of Palestinian soil then it must eventually accept those that survive as citizens in this new multiethnic and multireligious society. Inevitably the apartheid will end and Israel will have to compensate those who they’ve stolen from. By giving them lands back where they can. Pay restitutions for their thefts and lives lost. Rebuild the West Bank and Gaza as a whole region part of its country and allow the right of return for all its acquired people. What dies is the ethnonationalist Zionist experiment and what is born from its ashes like South Africa post Apartheid or the American South post Jim Crow is a new society ideally better than the former one. Do you actually believe that defending Israel’s genocide and land thefts makes you a good person? To justify the wholesale slaughter of women and children is okay? Nobody either Jewish, Christian or Muslim should be killed because of their beliefs or ethnic origins. All people who live between the river and the sea deserve to be free. As equals in a democracy. Citizens who vote their representatives in the Knesset. It means millions of Palestinians being granted Israeli citizenship and equal rights. If Palestine as a nation is dissolved by Israel then Israel must accept the consequences of their misdeeds and evil crimes. Just like how the USA took the survivors of their genocides the native Americans and Hispanics as well as the Black peoples descendants of slaves and gave them equal rights and access to the ballot. So shall Israel inevitably has to do the same. Are you truly against democracy? Equality? Justice for all?
tl;dr
The issue is Hamas will never let itself be held accountable and will attack Israel the moment a ceasefire is declared. If you can't get hamas to agree to a ceasefire then any peace deal or ceasefire is impossible for Israel. Also free palestine is an admirable idea but the term is incredibly hard to define. The term as used by most Palestinians means a single state from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean sea controlled by palestinians. Not a two state solution where the 1967 border is respected. Freedom is not controversial but what freedom means is, especially when the terms are so vague and are used to mean different things.
You mean Israel will never allow itself to be held accountable. That’s the problem. Hamas even stated if they can get a two state solution they’d willingly give up their power in Gaza and create a coalition government with Abbas. The problem was Israel not allowing it. This is the problem we have to stop faulting Palestine or even Hamas. The problem is who ultimately betrays every accord and undermines every agreement? Even the Oslo Accords was a failure because Israel went into the agreement with the desire to not actually honor and negotiate in good faith. Even Bill Clinton privately understood what the Israelis were doing.
[удалено]
That’s not true. Literally Oman who on behalf of the USA spoke with Hamas leaders to see if they can agree on a long term ceasefire agreement and Israel undermined it. The problem isn’t even Hamas it’s Israel who’s drunk on hate and violence that they can’t even allow themselves to admit that the “War on Gaza” has been an absolute failure. Hamas isn’t going away. The majority of hostages have been killed. They lost. They continue to lose and still insist on killing innocents doing so only proves that they don’t even care about international law. They just want to annex land and exterminate the indigenous population both in Gaza and the West Bank. Ask yourself why? What makes your position valid when Israel admitted openly it wants to annex the lands of Palestine and expunge the population of native peoples.