You don’t need to watch the videos here, especially the longer ones. They’re here to provide substance & information for anyone who's particularly interested. This will mainly apply to Progressives in the West, particularly in the U.S.. I show videos & links so much is because I am not really that articulate & I don’t know how to condense down some particularly complicated issues or make the information more convenient to get.
I recommend reading each individual point by each individual point & taking breaks between each one to avoid becoming overwhelmed.
You might also want to check out Kriss Ite's answer to What don't most conservatives realize?
1.
(The above image comes from Alternative Media Censorship).
Their media is literally controlled by the CIA & military-industrial complex. Look at the upper right of the image below for the example of Viacom, that owns Comedy Central, & how it’s connected with the military-industrial complex.
(The above image comes from the video MIC and Mass Media (maps and voice by Ryan Dawson), which I was able to get from using Awesome Screenshot Minus & the crop tool.)
For more information, see the Newsbud video
“How the Left Killed the Anti War Movement ” (19 minutes long);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzt-sPxh5IE
If you get your news & commentary from Comedy Central, then I don’t think that you can rightly criticize people who get their news & commentary from Louder With Crowder or The Daily Stormer, as that they both engage in low-brow comedy instead of intellectual discussions.
And Noam Chomsky is controlled opposition.
—————————————————————————————————————
2. Social justice is not the biggest issue on everyone’s minds right now. There are bigger issues to talk about than Queer & gender rights/equality (see Matthew Bates's answer to What is something that needs to be said that nobody wants to hear?), such as the economy, or foreign policy. More on these later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Today’s so-called “public education” system was created by the Prussians and runs on a philosophy that is expressly designed to instill obedience, not to educate the common people.
The bureaucratic structure of centralization does NOT improve education. It only incentivizes the government to run a schooling system that runs on a philosophy of creating obedient people. Yeah, sure, you’re just smart enough to go to work every day and read road signs, but too conditioned into obedience to question anything.
Don't take my word for it. Ask Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the creator of the Prussian Schooling philosophy (straight from the horse's mouth!).
Also, not that I’m totally against unions, teacher’s unions look out for the interests of their members before they look out for the interests of society as a whole. The reason why teacher’s unions oppose school choice would be much like prison guard’s unions opposing policies that would lower incarceration rates because such policies would cost the union’s member’s jobs.
The article Why don't kids like school? Plus the problems with public education, how to fix it, the origins of public schools, & links to additional resources dives deeper into the problems & solutions with education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Economics (this is perhaps the most complicated, perhaps overcomplicated, issue here);
This is what Anarcho-Communism is, in a nutshell, like in reality:
Socialism… Read People will often use Venezuela as an example of socialism not working. But why do we ignore all the examples of capitalism failing, like the major divide between the wealthy and the poor in the US?
Why much of Africa & Latin America are poor:
Kriss Ite's answer to Why do Latin America and Africa struggle to develop whereas Asia was able to do so? What lessons can Africa learn from Asia?
Democratic socialism…
How do libertarians explain the economic success of Sweden and other Nordic countries?
How do the Conservatives explain that the social democracies of Scandinavia (Finland, Denmark, Norway) are the happiest countries in the world and have a very high standard of living?
Scandinavian countries do NOT tax corporations that much (the U.S.A. used to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world). They tax YOU.
Country Rankings.
But don’t think that their welfare system makes things really so great as they seem on the surface.
Dark lands: the grim truth behind the 'Scandinavian miracle' - The Guardian
Why Denmark isn’t the utopian fantasy Bernie Sanders describes - Washington Post
True or False: Scandinavians Are Practically Perfect in Every Way - National Geographic
Denmark Tells Bernie Sanders It's Had Enough Of His 'Socialist' Slurs | Investor's Business Daily
Sorry, liberals, Scandinavian countries aren’t utopias - New York Post
No, Bernie Sanders, Scandinavia is not a socialist utopia - Boston Globe
Singapore: A Fascinating Alternative To The Welfare State
Long videos for those particularly interested:
When it comes to anti-capitalists (or at least Marxists), I have a feeling that I can go on almost literally forever due to the attitude of unfalsifiability & through the use of continuous No True Scotsman arguments & endless Ad hoc hypothesis.
Our Segment? Ad Hoc Recovery by Sayed Hajaj on Liberty at Large
Taxation:
If not so much of money from businesses were taken by taxes, they could pay their employees more, who could earn enough money to be themselves better off.
Even back in the day when income tax rates peaked, there were many ways to get around it so it was de-facto possible to pay significantly less than the official, on-paper tax rate.
Separation of Business and State Ch 4 So Just Tax the Rich Right?
Should We Tax the Rich More?
Minimum wage:
Why Many Minimum Wage Studies Are Bogus:
Getting the problem of many minimum wage studies out of the way, today’s concept of a minimum wage really got started to racist Eugenics movement members (no intent to say that Eugenics is always racist) when they wanted able-bodied men to dominate the marketplace, & supported minimum wage to price the ‘less fit’ out of the marketplace. Early on, white racists supported minimum wage to price non-whites out of jobs.
If cigarettes were taxed higher, people will buy them less. Likewise, if employing someone costs more, fewer people will be employed, &/or be allowed to do paid work for fewer hours.
How Employers Set Wages:
As for price-controls, listen to the video “Disqualified from having an opinion for being the wrong color”:
For those of you who wonder why your employer should receive & control all of the profits:
Some case studies on how minimum wage hurts workers:
For those of you who want to intellectually challenge yourselves or want to debunk some videos, check out the sarcastically named playlist Screw capitalism & libertarian billionaire corporatism! It sucks! Democratic Socialism is good! Raise minimum wage! Tax the rich! What are fair taxes? - YouTube.
By the way, does anyone find it strange or even funny that Friedrich Engels & Karl Marx, the writers of The Communist Manifesto, were both relatively well off & relatively well educated cisgender White men who are probably straight & Christian (actually, Marx might’ve been Jewish or part Jewish, but I’m not sure about this), the people that much of the far-left (ESPECIALLY the Social Justice crowd & Black Nationalists) today despise the most? More on race & identity politics later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. To add to point 4, capitalism does NOT cause war or imperialism.
First off, capitalism is not the reason why we go to war. Governments declare war, & governments buy armaments needed for war, not the market.
"Democratic peace" may actually be capitalist peace, because you really do not want to go to war with those that you trade with.
A Capitalist Peace?
Even the left-wing, anti-capitalist media outlet AJ+ says this is why China & Japan very probably will not go to war.
Yes, capitalist peace is a real thing.
Besides, true capitalism involves private individuals & entities making voluntary exchanges, while economic statism involves taking taxpayer's money with force or threats thereof & the government spending it on or giving it to whoever or whatever it wants.
—————————————————————————————————————
6. Governments have killed an estimated 262 MILLION civilians in the 20th century alone, six times more than military personnel in all pre-21st-century wars combined. Yet the left wants to disarm civilians.Don’t tell me that with the laws we have in place that governments can’t be tyrannical domestically. Places such as the Soviet Union, communist China & even North Korea gives people rights on paper, but obviously, not in practice. And don’t get me started about countries with an aggressive & violent foreign policy.
Throw away the notion that civilians with small arms would be helpless against modern military forces:
How would a pro-gun person respond to the claim that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete because the US military is too powerful for civilians to revolt?
How can the Second Amendment be used to protect citizens against tyranny if civilian weapons are impotent against the modern military?
How is owning a handgun supposed to protect your political freedom if the military have cruise missiles?
How long (in minutes) would your average civilian Second Amendment believer last against a battle-tested squad of GIs?
As for rather or not guns are the reason why America is more violent than other developed western countries, see Kriss Ite's answer to Why do many Americans believe guns reduce crime, and make criminals scared? How do they explain the fact that most European countries are incomparably less violent?.
Many progressives believe that the police are racist, believe that racism is still a serious problem in our society, & many of them also don't trust the military. But ironically, many of these same people want to disarm everyone, including minorities. If that happens, how will supposedly oppressed minorities defend themselves!?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Western governments do NOT do political & military interventions for any humanitarian reason whatsoever, but rather, for the gain of central banks, the military-industrial complex, & the governments of Israel & Saudi Arabia.
Because this answer addresses typical leftists, I’ll address the wars started under Obama.
Muammar Gaddafi was actually a socialist who used oil to put money into his country & rebuild Africa (how’s that for being progressive or socialist?).
(MUAMMARGADDAFI DEMONISED BY THE WEST BUT HERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT LIBYA UNDER GADDAFI | Meme on me.me)
While he’s far from someone that I like, at least it’s better to have him than have Islamist militants rule over whatever is left of a place (don’t you care about human rights or gender equality? Fundamentalists don’t).
(Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency)
The reason why Gadaffi was overthrown was because he challenged the power & influence of western governments too much:
Libya War: What They Don’t Want You to Know
What Happened to Libya’s Gold? - Questions For Corbett #036
And today, there is open slavery in Libya. How is that for "spreading democracy"?
CNN:
VICE:
France 24:
euronews (in English):
The reason why Obama started to support Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad is over the fact that the governments of Israel & Syria hate each other, & the Israeli government wants control over a pipeline that was to go through Syria.
I also find it hilarious that much of the left accepts a politician supporting unjustified wars of aggression that gets black & brown people killed, but doesn't see it as racism. Personally, I don't think that Obama, Clinton, or other left-leaning government officials who support war does so out of hate or prejudice, but out of financial gain, getting money from Military-Industrial Complex, AIPAC, the Saudi Royals, etc.
I guess it’s not Imperialism when a leftist does it.
I do, however, have some respect for liberals who are consistently anti-war, such as George Galloway, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, & people who are in the group Code Pink.
To add to this, aid to the 3rd world (especially Africa), while is of course necessary in emergencies, is actually hurting them in the long term, as that much of the "aid" is actually lent, which buries countries alive in debt, & corrupt governments all too often pass down that debt to the people, making them suffer economically. In addition, donating food way after an emergency is over actually hurts the ability of places to support themselves economically, as that people will take the free or reduced cost stuff instead of buying locally & supporting their own economy, creating dependency (this was mentioned in a long talk that Ryan Dawson had).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Many left-wing government officials get money from big companies. This is why they, just like their right-wing counterparts, support a militaristic foreign policy & oppose civil liberties (such as privacy rights), & support corporatism.
Even Bernie Sanders is a sellout to the military-industrial complex in policy;
Bernie Sanders a Warmonger and Economically Illiterate - ANC Report
Bernie Sanders Loves the Military-Industrial Complex
Bernie Sanders: Savior or Seducer of the Anti-War Left?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Healthcare.
If you prefer a videos explanation, see these three (which I recommend because it’s more convenient to listen to them & they articulate things better than I do). If you prefer to read, continue.
In 1965, the single-payer health insurance programs, Medicare & Medicaid made poor people less dependent on private charities & more dependent on political institutions & pharmaceutical companies. The healthcare industry gets money from said programs, which makes things more expensive because they can charge almost as much as they want.
That same year, the government also took over the training of new doctors, & as of 1997, the number of available spots for training is limited at 110,000 per year, & it has not increased since. Even doctors from developed Western countries are required to go through this training. Plus, the American Medical Association has lobbied Congress & state governments to give its members de-facto monopolies on the licensing of doctors, which is done to limit the number of doctors, which increases the prices charged by doctors.
When it comes to healthcare insurance companies, they face regulations such as not being able to compete across state lines & being required to give coverage for things that their customers don’t need, like maternity care coverage for men, infertility coverage for couples who don’t want to conceive children, & alcohol addiction treatment for non-drinkers.
Between mandates, price-controls, & third-party payers such as government, employers, & insurance companies acting as middlemen, no one knows what they’re actually paying for their care, & no one has much of a reason to be concerned.
When it comes to the FDA, it may as well be privatized. There have been many cases where even if a drug has been used in other countries & is proven to be safe, the FDA won’t even let dying patients take it while the FDA tests the drug for efficacy, not even safety.
Compare the FDA to product safety & certification organizations such as Underwriters Laboratories. UL has an excellent track record, getting testing done quickly & accurately. If they don’t, companies would go with UL’s competitors. If a UL certified product hurts you, you can sue UL. The same can’t be said for the FDA, a government agency.
As for the FDA being made beholden to pharmaceutical companies, its already happened. The FDA acts “carefully” to not upset its corporate sponsors, which provides about half of its budget for drug evaluation.
Privatizing the FDA would also save taxpayers 3+ billion dollars.
In a free market, there is an incentive to lower prices & increase the quality of goods & services because doing so would earn one more money & a better reputation, & not doing so would mean that one does not earn money & they get a worse reputation.
With government, the government can just make people pay through taxes, & if there isn’t real competition, government made goods & services turn out to be low quality.
Look at parts of the medical business that aren’t (yet) heavily regulated, such as cosmetic surgery, lasiks & retail clinics. For the first two, prices aren’t raising exorbitantly (they’re actually falling) as that the patient pays directly, which is seen when a breast job, a cosmetic surgery, costs say, around two-thousand dollars compared to, say, an appendectomy which costs tens of thousands. And retail clinics, because they provide care that does not require a doctor or full-fledged doctor’s office or hospital but does so at much lower prices. The American Medical Association doesn’t like this, & wants to have more control over those parts of the medical business.
We see the same thing about technology. When defibrillators were deregulated, they became less expensive, more advanced, & overall better. Same with smartphones (which are even in reasonable reach of many poor people), & so on & so forth. Even if lifting price caps means that equipment will become more expensive, this is only in the short term, as that in the long term, prices will go down.
Videos that I got my points from:
Health Care is a Mess... But Why?
Govt Should Do Less
Recommended:
John Stossel - Free Market or Government Medicine: What Will Be The New Way? 4/25/13
The Wonderful Life of Private Charity
The truth about healthcare exposed ] Socialized healthcare vs free market healthcare - YouTube
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. We can’t just absorb the 2nd & 3rd worlds.
11. Affirmative action. In case you don’t want to listen to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams & Larry Elder, here’s what affirmative action is in a nutshell:
12. The Electoral College & the problem of direct democracy.
Thomas West's answer to America is so proud of its democracy and freedom, why is it content with the Electoral College which allow people from different states to have uneven voting power? is actually spot-on, & conveys the points I’m trying to make better than I do.
Let’s say that the United States of America ran on direct democracy. If we were to hold the vote on slavery, what if 49.6% wanted to keep it legal, while 49.4% wanted to ban it? Should we legalize slavery if 100% -1 voted “yes” to legalize it?
That’s the problem in a direct democracy with no restrictions. Under a republic, there will be rules to protect the rights of the individual.
Under a republic, it doesn’t matter if a strong majority thought that slavery should be legal, because, under the law, it is illegal.
If America is so racist (which some of you think it is), then why would you want a direct democracy?
Also, the Electoral College is necessary to protect minority voters, people who live in sparsely populated states & regions, as that national level elected officials would almost exclusively address the interests of voters from large, urban areas instead of small-town, rural flyover areas.
13. Climate change.
Anthropogenic climate change is a lie. Don’t take my word for it;
CLIMATEGATE | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
14. Racism & stereotyping.
First off, rather or not there is any power is a non-sequitur (irreverent) when talking about racism or metaphysical principals in general.
Is it not racism/racist if…
… an African dictator personally shoots a homeless, emaciated person because the latter’s skin was too light & the former didn’t like the latter’s hair texture?
… Oprah Winfrey visited an impoverished Appalachian community & called a young White boy to broke parents who are cousins a “honky”?
… a Native American walked up to a Black person & told him/her "Go back to your s***hole, n*****. And put a bone through your nose!”?
… someone is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, if they’re surrounded by non-white prisoners & under the authority of non-white Guards & a non-white Warden?
… a Neo-Nazi is ethnically Caucasian in China?
I’m genuinely curious.
I actually got this inspiration from some YouTube comments sections.
By the way, here are some videos on the topic for anyone interested in extra food for thought:
Anyway, while racism still does still exist, we in the developed Western world have made leaps & bounds since the past. Today, slavery & segregation are illegal. Race mixing is today pretty accepted & even seen as normal. In the United States of America, ethnic groups aren’t waging open war against each other as in much of the 3rd world. Like 9/10 of young people today doesn’t have a problem with a close family member marrying someone of another race.
Besides, if the West (especially the United States of America) is so racist, then why do so many people want to come over here? Many immigrants to America talk about the relative lack of racism here.
It’s so good that Confederate-flag waving rednecks, Muslims, Jews, & innter-city Blacks arguably get along better than Catholics & Protestants in Northern Ireland on the basis that in the supposedly gun crazy U.S.A. We aren’t having paramilitary groups shooting out with each other in the open, which does (or at least did) happen in Northern Ireland.
If anything, it is the left making race an issue by constantly obsessing over it. Perhaps a reason for the rise of the Alt-right is the left's constant approval & use of identity politics for everyone except for Christian, cisgender, straight White men (I oppose all forms of identity politics. I'm also half-Asian, an atheist, have Asperger'syndrome & a casual furry, so I guess that I should have some victimhood status by the left's normal standards);
Arman Siani's answer to Why is white nationalism on the rise globally?.
If you keep calling something racist, you will attract actual racists.
(42:44)
If you keep accusing people of being racist so much when there’s little to no real evidence & when it originally didn’t affect anyone else, you’ll push people to the right.
Dennis Manning's answer to Who is someone that just needs to shut up?
(5:04 to 9:15)
Implying that almost anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a Nazi/Alt-right/White supremacist (as pointed out by Paul Joseph Watson) is neither accurate nor productive.
Ryan Dawson, who himself has predicted many events such as 9/11 & the Syrian civil war predicts that in 8–10 years the political pendulum that has swung so far left will swing far to the right due to SJW crybullying. And Trump is minor-league compared to what he predicts that we’ll get. He also commented that the pendulum going far to the right is “not going to great either”, as in it’s not an entirely good thing (which I agree with him).
(This is mentioned at 1:13:20 below.)
Additionally, I find some left-wing Black activists & speakers to be just as collectivist as anti-Muslim & anti-Jewish bigiots. Just as many anti-Muslim & anti-Jewish bigots use the Fallacy of Composition (& to a degree, Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)) to talk about Muslims or Jews as a single homogeneous, monolithic group in which most to all of its members are the same, & perhaps involved in some conspiracy to keep outside groups subjugated, I've seen left-wing Black activists & speakers talk about Caucasians as a single homogeneous, monolithic group in which most to all of its members are the same, & perhaps involved in some conspiracy to keep outside groups subjugated.
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, Kothorix's video "WHITE PEOPLE" articulates this issue well:
As for why Black Americans are worse off, the number one reason is single-parent households, which is caused by welfare (plus the war on drugs), enabled by a "You owe me" attitude, which promotes an attitude of entitlement
Compare this to Japan. In Japan, they don’t foster an attitude of entitlement. The way that Japanese welfare (or should I say workfare) works is, instead of giving people money for doing nothing, you do get money, but you’re required to do menial tasks as a condition to get that money.
(Skip to 6:54 if you’re interested.)
Also, the War on Drugs, which gets people incarcerated for victimless crimes & minor crimes, & the lack of choices in education, which results in kids being stuck in crummy schools, also hurt not only Black Americans but us all.
While there are problems in the system, we all as individuals, regardless of our biological category or group victim history, must take a look at ourselves, & what we can do to make things better.
If you still don’t get it, I recommend listening to My most recommended anti-SJW YouTube channels.
If you want to know how I feel, Kothorix’s video “Thought control” & "Living in Fear" (especially the former) sums things up;
Maybe it's actually the modern left that's racist, as that many members of it think that minorities can't get forward without things like government handouts & lowering standards (with affirmative action).
To close this off, you think that this is wrong:
(Muslim Violence)
But there’s nothing wrong with this:
(https://web.archive.org/save/https://susanthebruce.blogspot.com/2013/06/legislators-guns-and-money.html)
“If you have to argue against the caricature of your opponent, you really have no argument to make at all”. - Shane Killian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. State's rights.
When California fought with President Trump over immigration, that's an example of why state's rights are important.
Also, things such as the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana & other recreational drugs is thanks to state's rights;
The Past Is Gone: Why Liberals Should Rethink States' Rights - The Atlantic
There's also the issue of who permits the other's existence. Why do you want to use force to govern others, but when others want to govern you, or *gasp* even want to govern themselves, why do you cry fowl?
16. Ron Paul & Donald Trump.
I personally think that those of you who think that Ron Paul was a racist deserve Donald Trump the very most out of any group of people on planet Earth.
We could’ve had a, as a president nice doctor who is against war, the war on drugs, bailouts, corporatism, the Patriot Act, NDAA, & aid to Israel & dictatorships.
Ron Paul comparison at DuckDuckGo
But instead, we have an egotistic, narcissistic asshole of a multi-billionaire.
Never mind Cenk Ugyur’s blog posts that are more recent than Ron Paul’s newsletters.
Or the fact that Obama continued the wars started under Bush.
Trump is what you get when you obsess over nonsense identity politics & virtue signal about super-safe issues.
But I have no problem with Trump being offensive because that is absolutely nothing compared to him flip-flopping on foreign policy, being a virtually unconditional Israel supporter, & being linked to the New York-New Jersey mob.
Trump is NOT a Russian agent. He is an Israeli government shill because his daughter (Ivanka Trump) is married to Jared Kushner who is involved in shady real estate business.
If you’re curious to see what I’m talking about, see the sarcastically named playlist TRUMP 2016! Make America Great Again! #DrainTheSwamp. Truth about Donald Trump exposed. - YouTube
Or better yet, buy the documentary "Trump's Zionist Ball & Chain" (as of the time this is posted, the Vimeo version has been deleted by Vimeo):
Trump's Zionist Ball & Chain, God is not a Real Estate Agent - ANC Report
StormCloudsGathering predicted in his video “Calling Out FAKE Liberals” that no one will take the left seriously in the next eight years of Republican rule that will follow Obama’s presidency. I guess that he was right!
So, if you think that Ron Paul is a racist (& that's why we should not support him), then you deserve Donald Trump the very most.
—————————————————————————————————————
17. Freedom of speech, censorship & deplatforming.
That idiot who shot up the Synagogue recently was probably pushed to the edge by what Ryan Dawson describes as “voicelessness, censorship, the deplatforming”. People like the Synagogue shooter gather in echo chambers, not really being debated or even really spoken to, surround themself with people who are practical yes men & eventually one of them snaps & acts out.
When they are driven underground, they get fear put into them, & a few of them snap & turn violent.
Almost no one is engaging these people. Not having a dialogue with these types does not change their minds or improve the situation. Calling someone names (like “Nazi”) & screaming “racist” & dropping the mike does not make anything better. People such as Ryan Dawson have been able to talk to racists before & change their minds.
Sargon of Akkad, a far better known commentator, has been given an assortment of labels, such as “Nazi”, “Alt-right sympathizer” & many more simply for debating Richard Spencer.
Here’s a couple of videos articulating why freedom of speech is so important, & how it even helps minorities. I honestly cannot believe that I have to talk about an issue as simple as this, & thus, won’t even bother taking up more space than I already have.
I can cover even more controversial issues, but I think that this is enough.
Whew! What a list that was.
Do you want to debate your opponents, especially libertarians, better? Instead of using poorly informed or thought out arguments or strawman arguments, here's a list of libertarian sources that you can intellectually challenge yourself with;
The best libertarian YouTube channels, websites & blogs/Sources for anti-libertarians to intellectually challenge themselves
Instead of listening to big-name media, here's some alternate media to listen to:
Don't like the mainstream media? Here's some alternate media sites that I would recommend, alternatives to Infowars/Alex Jones, plus the greatest videos & articles of the truth. And how to bring real change.
I could’ve made this more “triggering”, but I decided not to in fear of this getting deleted (or worse) for a BNBR violation. I’m already walking on thin ice here.
Tostig Account Terminated; All Answers Erased? by Dennis Pratt on Liberty at Large
My seven deal-breaking issues on why I hate the left more than the right:
1. Economics & fiscal policy. Conservatives at least have a slither of a hint about policies related to money.
1. Right to self-defense, & the means of self-defense, being to keep & bear arms & armor. Most conservatives have a clue & a little understanding about this (not to say that all are particularly articulate, though).
The two above issues are just about tied in my mind.
2. Conservatives, exaggerated/excessive or not, seriously care about keeping their countries afloat, including keeping the cultural integrity of their countries.
3. Today, conservatives have more respect for the right to freedom of speech/expression than the left.
4. Conservatives are more tolerant to school choice & general educational liberty than seemingly most progressives.
5. Conservatives aren’t chugging Marxist Kool-Aid that is, seemingly, increasingly farther to the left & more partisan.
(This video is a must-watch.)
7. Conservatives are seemingly more willing to sit-down & talk to opponents. John Stossel was able to get an episode called "Libertarians vs Conservatives" going, but not the same for progressive-liberals. I also almost never see conservatives shut-down comments sections on social media, & are less likely to block people they disagree than progressive-liberals:
Liberals are more likely to unfriend you over politics — online and off - The Washington Post
While at least I don't see leftists believe in "might makes right" philosophy, it's doesn't outweigh the previous seven issues that I've listed here. Besides, many leftists believe in direct-democracy, which especially if not regulated, is legitimized mob rule.
Disagree with anything said here? Please put me in my place in the comments below. I invite criticism so I can improve myself intellectually & present more accurate information or better philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment