If left-wing covers all concepts left of center, and many mild left policy still incorporates capitalism, then it can’t be reduced that strictly. I could agree that progressive or far left policy isn’t compatible with capitalism

Edit either way, we disagree on semantics. It’s off topic for the original question now (I’m not sticking that on you, I contributed to this semantic rabbit hole)

To circle it back, I think there’s a way to invite “normies”, maintain left leaning (even very left leaning) positions, and not compromise the platform.

Edit edit and I think that’s possible without purity testing or shotgunning people with theory

When did I suggest that would be a leftist? Maybe reread. Specifically the end.

He may hold left opinions on LGBTQ+ issues but hold completely contracting, non left wing opinions elsewhere. We can be sure that’s true. He’s certainly not a leftist, and likely not a left wing voter either.

Ultimately I’d highlight that you are doing the.thing: you are purity testing very broad language in a completely useless way

To be hyper clear for you:

Left WING is not leftIST

LeftIST is left WING

You’re ina thread authored by an canadian about “normies”. North American concepts matter.

Edit even wherever you’re from “left wing” (the scope of center to far left) exists, just the starting point of center is unique.

Further, your purity test determination leaves no room for the varied mins of people all over the world. For example fiscal centrists who are socially progressive. You may call that a false leftist, but I’d just say they’re a mild left wing voter. I bet if they weren’t purity tested they’d eventually shift their perspective on fiscal matters leftward.

Point being people hold varied political opinions, sometimes in complete contrast to themselves. I bet there’s some completely theory pure fiscal leftists who don’t believe in abortion rights, or some other bizarre combo

10s of millions of “left wing” (read, the entire spectrum from center to marx) folks believe that, for better or worse.

That opinion is entirely valid as “left wing” but certainly isn’t very left, on an absolute scale.

Seriously people here seem to attach politics to a picture of a sandwich if God forbid the company logo is on the paper to the side.

But an account means nothing, just make a new one on an instance that also aligns with your expectations

Until r/TheDonald you wouldn’t really see right wing concepts on the frontpage.

Left “wing” in normie US is a broad neighborhood.

Left “ism” in normie US is a study of progressive politics with deviation from center exponentially growing as you go “more left”.

Lots of “left wing” folks in the US are low on the leftism deviation curve, but due to the way things work in the US they are definitely “left wing”.

So you absolutely get fiscal centrists with much “lefter” social opinions. And other “left-lite” view combos.

I think to grow Lemmy non combative, but non compromising spaces should exist. Much how some are warped right by spending too much time in the “manosphere” content, folks can be convinced of increasingly progressive politics by being welcomed here. Mind, I’m not saying anyone should cater to anything they don’t agree with, but God damn Lemmy could be less combative. Purity testing mild left folks drives them right. You don’t have to compromise your morals or positions to accomplish this.

So I’d close by saying Americans aren’t “confused” about anything, they’re just less exposed with further left policy / theory, due to being exposed most to milder progressive concepts.

On the right, maga is remarkable because it’s drawing many conservatives quickly up the exponential deviation ladder at a quantity not really seen before.

I think one of the issues is “normies” do not want to learn the lore like:

“don’t bother with anyone with lemmygrad after their name”

“Block these communities on day one”

“Be sure to pick an instance that you researched aligns with your moderation tolerances”

If you have to do setup stuff, many folks are already out. Someone may see that as a feature, but I don’t see Lemmy growing much more with that “feature”.

So if you’re happy with the size of things, mission accomplished. If you want to discuss “how to grow Lemmy” well, the above topics need to be addressed.

Hey you’re doing the thing

Between Biden and trump we are in a new era.

Similarly McConnell holding up supreme court nominee hearings for months, the way he did represents the erosion of another “gentleman’s agreement” between the branches of government.

And then exporting our culture, so, strap in everybody

… Unfortunately yes. He just translated money into power

We be prosperin.

Flation be gone

In a perfect system, the pardon is meant to be a “check” on the powers of the other branches. (Legislative and judicial). Each branch is meant to both support AND check the others.

Obviously we are watching it all unwind. Certain things were a “gentleman’s agreement” in that a president normally wouldn’t over do it and just pardon tons of people. We are finding out lots of things were just assumed to be ok, but are easily abused by bad actors

You mean when many many thousands of Americans died needlessly to the fucking flu, because he refused to take it seriously? Some estimates put avoidable deaths in the 6 figures.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37093505/

You entered a thread about “queer people who are buying guns” and decided to lecture the group on how there’s gun violence in America. The article discusses the unique motivations this and other at risk groups have, which I have echoed. You’ve decided the mentioned group is the group to lecture about gun violence, and conclude that this group should not acquire guns despite their right.

It’s completely transparent why you are doing so, especially as you’ve provided zero discussion beyond lashing out at others.

On this topic (their fear and vulnerability [ their words, not mine] )… In what way have you been an ally to the mentioned group? You call their legitimate fears, and expression of their rights “larping”, and attempt to shame them into obeisance by waving stats about crimes they have no intentions of commiting, deaths they have nothing to do with, in their faces.

Despicable.

There are legitimate times to discuss national gun violence (what’s funny is we would be in agreement there). You could even have discussed other means of comfort/stability/protection they could consider as alternatives. Anything constructive at all. But you didn’t do that, you slung mud/ guilt on an at risk group in a time of crisis, dinging talking points from the groups that seek to oppress/hunt them, like it was bingo.

It’s fun how you.never address the points r criticisms directly. Slippery!