Why People Leave The Left

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

My main problem is just with the ideological aspect. The group herd mentality. Copy pasting. Not thinking for yourself.

The very epitome of how racism works.

Edited June 5 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

I will never apologize for being white.

Dude, this is such a strawman.

No one is asking for that.

Just be empathetic towards a history of systemic white on brown/black racism. In the same way that if you were German you would be empathetic towards Holocaust survivors even if you were born after the Nazi era. No one is saying you are a Nazi or to apologize for Nazis. But as a German you must be sensitive to the legacy of Nazism. You can't just act like, "Fuck you guys, I wasn't a Nazi so fuck antisemitism concerns." There is a larger collective lesson there which isn't about personal blame. It's truly not about you or your race. It's about sensitivity to abuse of minorities by majorities. If you are part of a majority you need to be sensitive to not abusing minorities. Regardless of who the majority or minority is. It could be humans abusing kangaroos.

But Leo! What about kangaroos abusing humans!

Edited June 5 by Leo Gura

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There very epitome of how racism works.

Yea the epitome how every bad thing works. Nazism, communism, islamism, radical christianity, zionism, wokeism, k-popism etc.

[gengar]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If you consider it utter nonsense then you don't get it.

Teaching about racism shouldn't feel like pulling teeth. Yet it does. Hence white fragility.

Well said.

Whites many times don't see, or want to see that the fact that whites are on top in the "current meta" changes the way you look at racial things.

I highly advice everyone struggling with these to watch this conversation between a black socialist and a white centrist about these topics. it's basically woke antiracism versus liberal colorblindness without all the annoying whining and antagonism.
 

These kind of honest conversations between different viewpoints don't come up commonly and its a shame. this is how you actually advance collective consciousness.

Edited June 5 by gengar

[Jodistrict]

My theory of what is wrong with wokeism, is that it comes from academics who are Marxists and hence materialists.  So their solutions can only come from states of lower consciousness, like anger and revenge.   For example, for several decades after Martin Luther King, the official narrative was that everyone is equal and society should be color blind.   But then the word “white” started entering the discourse and then there was white privilege, and white this and white that.  Previously, anthropologists were pointing out that race is a cultural construction and has no basis in biology.   Leaders like Martin Luther King and Ghandi were leading from states of higher consciousness, like compassion.  Martin Luther King was a Christian minister and Ghandi was a Hindu.  It should be noted that the right wing has become equally materialistic.   So you have people who have no compassion for an immigrant washing dishes 12 hours a day to feed his family because he broke some technical law designed to keep him out.

Edited June 5 by Jodistrict

[gengar]

12 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

My theory of what is wrong with wokeism, is that it comes from academics who are Marxists and hence materialists.  So their solutions can only come from states of lower consciousness, like anger and revenge.   For example, for several decades after Martin Luther King, the official narrative was that everyone is equal and society should be color blind.   But then the word “white” started entering the discourse and then there was white privilege, and white this and white that.  Previously, anthropologists were pointing out that race is a cultural construction and has no basis in biology.   Leaders like Martin Luther King and Gandi were leading from states of higher consciousness, like compassion.  Martin Luther King was a Christian minister and Gandi was a Hindu.  It should be noted that the right wing has become equally materialistic.   So you have people who have no compassion for an immigrant washing dishes 12 hours a day to feed his family because he broke some technical law designed to keep him out.

You left out the part where MLK became disillusioned basically right after his "I have a dream" speech because of the lack of results, and started becoming an advocate for more radical socialist and leftist politics. American history likes to leave that part out for obvious reasons.

White liberals started to believe that race doesn't exist because the American elite fed those ideas to them, to obfuscate the real racial inequality that was still going strong. When minorities, from their position try to then point out "whiteness", which is obvious to them, liberal Whites suddenly feel attacked ; "We don't even believe in race! why attack us for it?"

The above conversation that I posted goes deeper into those dynamics, and how as a white person becoming more "race conscious" shouldn't be either white supremacist or self-hating guilt identity, but just a healthy raising of consciousness to do whats best. Just become conscious of the dynamics without adding all the bullshit to it.

Edited June 5 by gengar

[zazen]

50 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

My main problem is just with the ideological aspect. The group herd mentality. Copy pasting. Not thinking for yourself. Like some of the posters here i can predict every post of them.

This is true. Usually liberal and leftists heavily support Palestine, and predictably also support DEI. But isn't it contradictory: they understand that Palestinians (in Middle East) shouldn't pay for the sins of others who caused a horrific injustice to the Jews (in Europe), but that logic goes out the window when it comes to making groups (white people) in the present, pay for the past historical injustices caused to another group (black people).

Both punish one person for another’s sin - and reduce people to their group identity. It's like moral racism or reverse racism - because it's identifying someone based on their race and treating them accordingly to protocol (DEI).

Equity (equality of outcome - leftism) negates equality (of opportunity - liberalism). The leftists who vouch for equity, assume themselves to be an extension of liberal equality, but it ends up undermining the very principles of classical liberalism which are built on: fairness, neutrality, individual merit, and equal opportunity.

The way to look at the political spectrum and make sense of it is this:

Far left: Equity (outcome, forced)

Middle Left: Equality (opportunity, fairness)

Middle Right: Quality (discernment, earned merit)

Far Right: Quantity (domination, measurable metrics)

Quantity oriented means that which is visible, measurable, surface level - IQ, race, strength / might makes right, eugenics = leads to supremacist thinking to justify domination. Both extremes (far left and far right) reduce human beings to statistics, labels, or categories.

Both extremes are metric based, surface driven, and  inhumane in the end. They both assign value based on what you are (on the surface), not who you are (at your depth). They both trap you into a label or avatar of a group based identity - rather than liberating you as a person with equality of opportunity, to unlock the best of your qualities. 

Equity also doesn’t just steal opportunity from one person to give it to another - it steals dignity from both. Imagine getting a position not because you earned it but because your x group. Justice should be prospective by building towards a fair future, not retrospective by settling a historic injustice. 

The issue that leftists rightly point out is that bias can and does still exist, even in a equal system. But they can't top down engineer and fix that because it only causes its own version of injustice and unfairness. It just replaces bias with counter-bias - which ironically only empowers the far right to pendulum swing back in retaliation. They try to mechanically correct a spiritual or cultural flaw with a structural or political fix - when its a spiritual cultural flaw. The solution has to happen in the domain of the spiritual and cultural, and more organically - not some GMO forced fakery creating a chlorinated chicken.

A balanced society doesn’t guarantee success, but guarantees a fair shot - and a soft landing if you fall. They level the floor from where everyone starts, not flatten the ceiling so that everyone can touch it.

It protects the right’s principle of merit (quality) while preserving the left’s principle of fairness (equality). And they are both synergistic in that the more equality of opportunity you have, the more quality is allowed to emerge from it.

Edited June 5 by zazen

[Jodistrict]

20 minutes ago, gengar said:

You left out the part where MLK became disillusioned basically right after his "I have a dream" speech because of the lack of results, and started becoming an advocate for more radical socialist and leftist politics. American history likes to leave that part out for obvious reasons.
 

You are repeating propaganda which was put out by J. Edgar Hoover to convince Americans that MLK was a communist.   But the bottom line is what he did worked.  There is no comparison between society in the 50s and today.   People could see the vicious attacks against civil rights protestors on television, and their natural human impulse that this was wrong made is feasible for politicians to make real changes.      

[gengar]

15 minutes ago, zazen said:

This is true. Usually liberal and leftists heavily support Palestine, and predictably also support DEI. But isn't it contradictory: they understand that Palestinians (in Middle East) shouldn't pay for the sins of others who caused a horrific injustice to the Jews (in Europe), but that logic goes out the window when it comes to making groups (white people) in the present, pay for the past historical injustices caused to another group (black people).

Both punish one person for another’s sin - and reduce people to their group identity. It's like moral racism or reverse racism - because it's identifying someone based on their race and treating them accordingly to protocol (DEI).

Your point assumes a large amount of individualism that western liberal society has made the default - but this is not at all how people have dealt with such things throughout history, and it subconsciously still doesn't even in liberal society. 

I know a black person IRL who doesn't believe in systemic racism, etc. Yet I know that he's still part of the black collective even if he doesn't want to see it this way. Other people put you in that collective even if you don't see it that way. The same goes for white people. You might believe you're not responsible for what white people collectively did to other people, and of course in one sense you're totally not. in another sense white people still have a responsibility to man up and fix the collective karma, which is what this rampant individualism and colorblindness is stagnating. Many right-wing, even far right people believe this, like Christian nationalists, Charlie Kirk and the like. Think of Candace Owens, black herself. She uses this notion of colorblindness, "equality" or "quality" as you call it to basically berate any kind of action against racism or systemic racism which doesn't even exist in her mind. Not only does she and the other Christian nationalists do this on the surface only, but also use the quality notion to further agendas of white supremacy, moving quality into quantity; "see, we're all equal in principle, but blacks have lower iq, so lets just accept that they're gonna be doctors less". You get the point. It's always done extremely disingenuous by the right to fool the centrist, liberal, colorblind people to move further right.

Edited June 5 by gengar

[gengar]

4 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

You are repeating propaganda which was put out by J. Edgar Hoover to convince Americans that MLK was a communist.   But the bottom line is what he did worked.  There is no comparison between society in the 50s and today.   People could see the vicious attacks against civil rights protestors on television, and their natural human impulse that this was wrong made is feasible for politicians to make real changes.      

Don't accuse me of such obvious bullshit. It's a historical fact MLK moved further left and was disillusioned. I'll post sources of it tomorrow since im too tired to look it up. Stop spreading disinformation

[Jacob Morres]

@SwiftQuill seems you did not read my previous comment 

[Jodistrict]

24 minutes ago, gengar said:

Don't accuse me of such obvious bullshit. It's a historical fact MLK moved further left and was disillusioned. I'll post sources of it tomorrow since im too tired to look it up. Stop spreading disinformation

Of course MLK had doubts and struggles.  He was a human being.  But he was living in a state of higher consciousness so his commitment to non violence was 100%.  Hoover did everything he could to discredit MLK, including painting him as a communist subversive and a moral degenerate.  Be careful of your sources.

[Jacob Morres]

2 hours ago, Jacob Morres said:

You could have white & male privelege, and also be developmentally & socieconomically unpriveleged, which leads you to work in mcdonalds 

White privelege in the job market specifically would be like: Like less barriers in top levels in companies, more likely to get a call back due to your name, people will assume you are a 'cultural fit' much more easily, better access to networks of white people (due to in-group preferences). That being said, being white won't get you to the top automatically, but there are subtle priveleges that you do get. If you work at mcd while older, there is socieconomic and maybe IQ/developmental challenges at play.

The privelege isnt white = automatically rich lol. That is way too reductive 

Applies to men, and straight ppl too

Im not criticizing you tbh, just pointing out some blindspots 

Did you read this @SwiftQuill?

It addresses most of your latest comment 

[SwiftQuill]

@Jacob Morres I'm done debating this topic. Call me privileged and all of that, I don't care. I've been told many times I'm privileged so this is nothing new. I'm not going to debate DEI any further. And frankly I'm going to avoid this politics forum from now on. People have 0 interested in addressing my points and prefer lecturing me about privilege and ignore all of my valid points.

[gengar]

55 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

@Jacob Morres I'm done debating this topic. Call me privileged and all of that, I don't care. I've been told many times I'm privileged so this is nothing new. I'm not going to debate DEI any further. And frankly I'm going to avoid this politics forum from now on. People have 0 interested in addressing my points and prefer lecturing me about privilege and ignore all of my valid points.

Although I tend to agree with some leftist points on racism, I also think DEI is at least going way too far. I recommend you to watch the PF Jung - FD Signifier conversation I shared earlier.

DEI is also not designed by actual leftists to solve racism but by corporate rats to further their agendas. contemplate why and how they do this.

Edited June 5 by gengar

[Jacob Morres]

34 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

@Jacob Morres  People have 0 interested in addressing my points 

I addressed most of your points with what I said in that comment I copy pasted. You completely evaded it and went on a tangent 

 

Edited June 5 by Jacob Morres

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

Call me privileged and all of that, I don't care.

That's not the issue. The issue is that you're too self-adsorbed to understand this topic.

You have an agenda and you're unwilling to let it go to understand a broader issue.

Edited June 5 by Leo Gura

[zazen]

1 hour ago, gengar said:

Your point assumes a large amount of individualism that western liberal society has made the default - but this is not at all how people have dealt with such things throughout history, and it subconsciously still doesn't even in liberal society. 

I know a black person IRL who doesn't believe in systemic racism, etc. Yet I know that he's still part of the black collective even if he doesn't want to see it this way. Other people put you in that collective even if you don't see it that way. The same goes for white people. You might believe you're not responsible for what white people collectively did to other people, and of course in one sense you're totally not. in another sense white people still have a responsibility to man up and fix the collective karma, which is what this rampant individualism and colorblindness is stagnating. Many right-wing, even far right people believe this, like Christian nationalists, Charlie Kirk and the like. Think of Candace Owens, black herself. She uses this notion of colorblindness, "equality" or "quality" as you call it to basically berate any kind of action against racism or systemic racism which doesn't even exist in her mind. Not only does she and the other Christian nationalists do this on the surface only, but also use the quality notion to further agendas of white supremacy, moving quality into quantity; "see, we're all equal in principle, but blacks have lower iq, so lets just accept that they're gonna be doctors less". You get the point. It's always done extremely disingenuous by the right to fool the centrist, liberal, colorblind people to move further right.

Very interesting points that bring nuance.

Yeah Candace and that crowd don’t acknowledge bias enough or at all. They point to “we’re all already equal under the law” and that any disparity is simply merit based (quality that they attribute supremacy to) when it can be discriminatory based.

The question is, are the disparities more due to merit or discriminatory bias? Discrimination is hard to quantify and find evidence for, whilst disparities are easily quantifiable and visible.

The left at least acknowledge that bias exist, but try to remedy it top down which creates its own counter bias.

Thats why I wrote that bias still exists even in a equal system, which you added to with your point that the world still has a bias towards collectivism - viewing people as collectives rather than individuals.

But perhaps the remedy to collective bias (racism-discrimination) isn’t collective punishment or reward either, via DEI policies. The remedy isn’t reversing the dynamic but transcending it - which only happens organically at a spiritual/cultural level, not a political one.

[Jacob Morres]

@zazen  it definitely could be partially merit based versus being race based. But for some studies like for guaging differences in callback rates with similar variables (like same resume, same companies, similar application timing with only the name changed), it seems pretty clear (like the previous study i linked)

Another one like this:

"The ethnic name groups were less likely to receive follow up questions or invitations to meet as compared to the white name group."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/104583246

Knowledge is "woke" lol. 

Edited June 5 by Jacob Morres