I saw a meme about this a while ago (have since forgotten it), but ever since I heard this sentence it's honestly crazy how much I've seen it really be true. Obviously more often the radicals on both sides have more different than in common, but it's so funny to see some really radical leftists doing exactly what radical conservatives are doing, and excusing it only because "we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys". I think Destiny on Twitter is a perfect example of this, go check him out if you want to see what I mean.
When You're so liberal you're actually conservative
Posts
Total:
21
-->
@Moozer325
I saw a meme about this a while ago (have since forgotten it), but ever since I heard this sentence it's honestly crazy how much I've seen it really be true. Obviously more often the radicals on both sides have more different than in common, but it's so funny to see some really radical leftists doing exactly what radical conservatives are doing, and excusing it only because "we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys". I think Destiny on Twitter is a perfect example of this, go check him out if you want to see what I mean.
As extremism has grown on both sides, what the words liberal and conservative refer to have become closer together than either is with the middle views, somehow, I think they have come to represent two “polar opposite” categories of one and the same extremism.
To say that “opposites” are “polar” is to say a lot more than they are opposed or separated; it is to say that they constitute a whole. There is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described. Polar opposites don’t even exist without each other, they are contingent upon each other, you just can’t have one without the other. Polar opposites are like the two sides of a coin, or the two ends of a stick; they refer to two opposing aspects of one and the same thing.
Seen as mirror images of one and the same extremist, they are not mutually exclusive at all; in fact, they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature.
I think they are mirror images, the same but inverted, and yet they don't recognize themselves in the mirror.
But then again, they say all wars are internal wars, so maybe on a deep level they do recognize themselves, and perhaps that is why they need the fight.
“Every extreme attitude is a flight from self.” – Eric Hoffer (The Passionate State of Mind)
There is some overlap with the left I think is healthy and it's unfortunate they struggle to help us in those areas. Hopefully if they ever gain the levers of power we are sensible enough to help them in those overlapping areas. One would be the minimum basic income. Conservatives have called it a fair tax as a marketing strategy to get boomers on board but liberals see the term fair tax and think it's a flat tax when really it's just a novel way to create a minimum basic income.
Another area is reducing military presence overseas. ..
We also agree with liberals on genociding non whites, which is why we really need to get behind and support abortion.
-->
@Sidewalker
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
-some guy
-->
@WyIted
"it is only the artists who have taught us how to estimate the hero that is concealed in each of these common-place men, and the art of looking at ourselves from a distance as heroes, and as it were simplified and transfigured,—the art of "putting ourselves on the stage" before ourselves. It is thus only that we get beyond some of the paltry details in ourselves! Without that art we should be nothing but fore-ground, and would live absolutely under the spell of the perspective which makes the closest and the commonest seem immensely large and like reality in itself."
Nietzsche has a really interesting take on Plato's cave allegory. He suggests we can use art to shortcut the limitations of the cave, allowing us to grow beyond the normal constraints. But there is also the danger of getting wrapped up in the art to such an extent that you become a caricature of reality. There should always be a balance.
As extremism has grown on both sides, what the words liberal and conservative refer to have become closer together than either is with the middle views, somehow, I think they have come to represent two “polar opposite” categories of one and the same extremism.
Your statement is self contradictory.
What is the difference between a liberal and a conservative?
Liberals care about harm and fairness (individualizing values), whereas conservatives care more about loyalty, authority, and sanctity (binding values).
-->
@Shila
You can be an anarchist and end up supporting authoritarian government by taking anarchist values to their extreme.
Really, almost any moral value when taken to extreme ends up in supporting dictatorship, which just tells you how great dictatorship is as a system.
-->
@Shila
Liberals care about harm and fairness (individualizing values), whereas conservatives care more about loyalty, authority, and sanctity (binding values).
Fairness requires authority much more than loyalty requires authority. You statement is contradictory.
Liberals care about harm and fairness (individualizing values), whereas conservatives care more about loyalty, authority, and sanctity (binding values).
Fairness requires authority much more than loyalty requires authority. You statement is contradictory.
Learn your definitions.
LOYALTY, which derives from the Latin root word lex, or law, has as one meaning that of being allegiant or faithful to recognized authority, whereas obedience means willingness to obey or submit to authority.
Attitudes associated with being fair
You may be able to show fair through their attitudes.
Willingness to listen
Impartiality
Transparency
Respect for others
Honesty
Objectivity
Open-mindedness
Equality
Ability to see multiple perspectives
-->
@Shila
lol your definitions are contradictory. Loyalty requires the opposite of coercion. You have compliance with the use of zero force.
Fairness must always require coercion by definition, otherwise the system was already absolutely intrinsically fair, and did not need any fair modifiers, thus there is no level of fairness or unfairness...
The very concept of fairness, while universally celebrated as an inherent virtue, is often subject to various interpretations depending on its context and the particular needs of the individuals or groups involved. Indeed, the notion of fairness can be seen as a product of both moral philosophy and practical governance, often intersecting with legal and ethical systems that regulate and maintain the social order. However, it is crucial to understand that fairness, by its very nature, is a concept that demands intervention, regulation, and enforcement for its realization. It cannot be fully actualized without coercion. This brings us to the paradoxical yet irrefutable assertion that fairness, by definition, necessitates coercion; without coercive mechanisms, fairness would be rendered superfluous, as it would already be realized in a state of natural equilibrium. Thus, to achieve fairness, it is not merely enough to declare it as a principle but to institute a system of enforcement that ensures its application, making coercion an indispensable instrument of fairness.
At its most basic level, fairness is often understood as the quality of being free from bias, favoritism, or injustice in the treatment of individuals or groups. It is inherently tied to the concepts of equality and impartiality, positing that individuals ought to be treated with equal regard, their interests weighed equally, and their claims considered without prejudice. These ideals underpin many moral and legal systems, forming the foundation of laws and social expectations in democratic societies. From the ancient Greeks to contemporary philosophers, fairness has been a topic of significant discourse.
The classical philosophers, notably Plato and Aristotle, began framing fairness in terms of justice. In Plato’s Republic, fairness is an essential component of a well-ordered society, where the ideal state operates under a principle of distributive justice. This justice, however, is not simply about giving everyone the same, but rather giving each person what they are due, considering their individual roles and contributions to the society. Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, presented a more nuanced view of fairness, emphasizing the balance between extremes and the maintenance of the mean in distributing goods, honor, and resources. His ideas led to the conception of proportional fairness—everyone receiving what they merit, based on their needs or contributions.
In modern times, fairness is often equated with the concept of equal treatment, as exemplified in various civil rights movements that advocate for the equitable treatment of marginalized groups. From the American Civil Rights Movement to contemporary discussions of gender equality and economic justice, fairness is the central principle driving calls for societal change. However, it becomes increasingly clear that fairness is not merely a matter of abstract ideals but something that requires structural and institutional enforcement to ensure its implementation. Without mechanisms to enforce fairness, societies would likely slip back into the state of inequality and injustice that fairness seeks to remedy.
The pivotal question we now must confront is: if fairness is a universal good, why does it need coercion for its realization? To answer this question, we must first explore the nature of fairness in its ideal form and contrast it with the reality of human behavior, social dynamics, and the distribution of power. Fairness, by definition, seeks to alter or regulate the natural state of affairs when those affairs are perceived as unjust or unequal. In other words, fairness is a correction of the status quo, one that strives to achieve a better, more equitable condition.
However, human nature and societal structures are far from naturally fair. People, often driven by self-interest, will pursue their own advantage, sometimes at the expense of others. In such a system, inequality and injustice are not merely possible; they are practically inevitable. Without external intervention, the forces of competition, power, and hierarchy would work to perpetuate these imbalances, creating systems of oppression and exploitation. In such an environment, fairness cannot thrive unassisted. Therefore, fairness must be enforced through mechanisms that exert control over individuals’ behavior, incentivizing compliance with the standards of fairness that society has set forth.
Coercion, in this sense, is not necessarily synonymous with violence or brute force. Rather, it encompasses the broader concept of enforcing compliance with societal norms and rules through a variety of means, including legal sanctions, economic penalties, and even social ostracism. Laws, taxes, social policies, and regulations all function as tools of coercion, ensuring that individuals and groups conform to the collective desire for fairness. These tools exist precisely because, in their absence, there would be no guarantee that fairness would be realized, as individuals might revert to behavior that maximizes their personal gain, disregarding the collective welfare.
For example, consider the progressive tax system. It is widely regarded as a means of achieving fairness in economic distribution, where those with higher incomes are required to contribute a larger share of their earnings to support public goods and services. Without the coercive power of taxation, the wealthiest individuals and corporations would have little incentive to contribute to the welfare of society, exacerbating social inequality. In this case, coercion is the vehicle through which fairness is made possible, as it forces the rich to contribute more proportionally to society’s well-being than they would otherwise voluntarily do.
Similarly, laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation serve to enforce fairness by preventing individuals and institutions from engaging in behavior that perpetuates social inequality. These laws are backed by the coercive power of the state, which can impose fines, penalties, or even imprisonment on those who violate them. In this instance, coercion ensures that fairness is not a mere ideal but a practical reality that impacts people’s lives in tangible ways.
Note that fairness cannot be a mere abstract principle that exists without reference to the broader social context in which it is applied. Without coercion, fairness would lack a tangible framework within which to be realized. Indeed, the mere declaration of fairness does not bring about fairness; the mechanisms of enforcement must be present for fairness to become a living, functioning principle within society. This is why, when we see calls for the elimination of coercion in the form of taxation or regulation, we must question whether fairness can truly exist in such an environment.
If fairness did not require coercion, it would imply that individuals would always act in accordance with what is just and equitable without the need for external enforcement. However, this idealized vision of human behavior is unrealistic, as history has shown time and again that humans are predisposed to act in their own self-interest, often at the expense of others. The very existence of legal and political systems is a testament to the need for external structures that impose order and regulate behavior, particularly when it comes to issues of fairness.
In a society where fairness is simply a matter of mutual consent or voluntary adherence, there would be little distinction between those who benefit from the system and those who suffer. Without coercive measures to ensure that fairness is upheld, the playing field would remain uneven, and the powerful would continue to dominate the less fortunate. Thus, fairness, by its very definition, must be enforced by coercion, as it is only through such enforcement that social equity can be achieved.
That fairness requires coercion is a necessary corollary of the very nature of fairness itself. Fairness seeks to rectify imbalances in society, addressing issues of inequality and injustice. However, the natural state of affairs is often one of inequity, where individuals act in their self-interest, perpetuating systems of oppression and exploitation. In such a context, fairness cannot be realized without external intervention. Coercion, whether through legal measures, taxation, or regulation, is the means by which fairness is enforced, ensuring that all individuals and groups are held accountable to the principles of equality and justice.
In a world without coercion, fairness would be reduced to a mere ideal—something to which society aspires but cannot attain. To achieve fairness, it must be actively regulated, corrected, and enforced. It is through these means that fairness can be made a living, functioning principle, ensuring that those who would otherwise be marginalized or oppressed are given the equitable treatment they deserve. Without coercion, fairness remains an unattainable dream, a lofty concept that, in its absence, fails to make any tangible impact on the real-world dynamics of power and inequality.
-->
@Shila
LOYALTY, which derives from the Latin root word lex, or law, has as one meaning that of being allegiant or faithful to recognized authority, whereas obedience means willingness to obey or submit to authority.
The modern definition of loyalty has evolved considerably from its etymological roots. While the fundamental concept of being "faithful" or "allegiant" remains consistent, the specific connotations and applications of the term have shifted over time.
The word loyalty is derived from the Latin root lex, which means law. In its earliest usage, loyalty was strongly tied to the idea of adherence to laws or recognized authority. To be loyal, in the traditional sense, was to show allegiance to a leader, ruler, or law, often in the context of feudal or political systems. The word itself came from the Old French term loial, which meant "legal" or "lawful," and it was used to signify a subject's duty to be faithful to their monarch or lord.
This etymology points to a broader, more institutional view of loyalty. It was inherently tied to legal systems and hierarchical structures of power. Loyalty, in this sense, was an obligation dictated by law and social norms rather than a purely personal choice. A person who demonstrated loyalty was considered to be adhering to a legal or social contract, and their loyalty was not so much a matter of personal affection or emotional connection but more of a duty or obligation.
In contrast, the modern definition of loyalty has expanded and become more flexible. While the concept of allegiance to authority still exists, today's understanding of loyalty is often not exclusively about following laws or external commands. Loyalty, in contemporary usage, is more commonly understood as a personal or emotional commitment to people, causes, institutions, or ideals.
Whereas loyalty in its traditional sense was directly tied to social and political structures—such as loyalty to a monarch, nation, or ruler—the modern definition can apply to a much broader range of relationships and contexts. For instance, people can be loyal to their families, friends, companies, sports teams, or even abstract causes, without any legal or formal obligation to do so. In this sense, loyalty has become more individualized and emotional, often reflecting personal values and connections rather than mere compliance with a recognized authority or legal system.
This shift reflects a societal transformation where personal choice and individualism have become more prominent. Loyalty is no longer automatically seen as something that arises from a duty to a recognized authority, but instead as something that can be freely chosen and voluntarily expressed. The modern sense of loyalty places greater emphasis on personal bonds, trust, and emotional investment, which are often the result of mutual respect or shared experiences.
Key Differences:
- Authority vs. Choice: Etymologically, loyalty was tied to the obedience to a higher power or authority (e.g., a monarch or legal system), while modern loyalty is more often a personal choice, based on emotional connections or mutual respect.
- Legal vs. Emotional: Historically, loyalty was often linked with legal or societal obligations—being loyal meant being faithful to laws or social contracts. Today, loyalty can be more emotional or relational, meaning being loyal to people, brands, or causes, even in the absence of a formal obligation.
- Institutional vs. Personal: In its earlier sense, loyalty was institutional and had a formal, hierarchical context, whereas now it can be expressed in personal relationships or abstract ideals, such as loyalty to friends or family, which have no basis in legal authority.
In conclusion, while loyalty still retains a fundamental connection to faithfulness and allegiance, its modern application has moved away from strict legal or hierarchical structures and instead focuses more on personal choice, emotional connection, and mutual commitment. This shift reflects broader societal changes in how we perceive authority, relationships, and personal values.
lol your definitions are contradictory. Loyalty requires the opposite of coercion. You have compliance with the use of zero force.
Trump demand loyalty out of respect for his authority.
-->
@Shila
Lol you have it backwards. He demands himself to hire people who share his beliefs. He can't force people to work for him.
He used to hire his enemies, and now he has changed.
Lol you have it backwards. He demands himself to hire people who share his beliefs. He can't force people to work for him.He used to hire his enemies, and now he has changed.
Trump demands loyalty to him if you accept his job offer. Those that left his admin or were fired all said the same thing about Trump. That Trump loved authority and loyalty.
-->
@Shila
Trump is now loyal to Maga, which is why he only hires Maga now instead of hiring non-Maga in 2016.
I'm libtarded so I fit in with the Maga retards
-->
@Shila
Republicans believe in a more limited government and lower taxes, is that not individualizing?
Democrats believe in racial equality through equity and leg up programs. Is that not binding?
Don’t try and categorize left/right beliefs into nice neat ideologies. Lots of the issues that are normally lumped together actually have nothing to do with each other.
-->
@Greyparrot
Fairness must always require coercion by definition
The requirement of coercion to achieve fairness is a product of human nature, specifically, the fact that there will always be disagreement in any large group of human beings. It has absolutely nothing to do with the definition.
Loyalty requires the opposite of coercion. You have compliance with the use of zero force.
Except that loyalty even as Chatgpt defined it (don't think anyone here thought they were reading your words) is a personal choice. So your attempt to paint loyalty as a more viable governing foundation fails miserably.
Trump is now loyal to Maga, which is why he only hires Maga now instead of hiring non-Maga in 2016.
Trump is loyal to no one but himself. Everyone who has escaped his cult has gone on at length about it, and he had demonstrated that to all of us time and time and time again.
The reason he hired non MAGA before is because he is a moron who really thought the president could "do whatever he wanted". It never occurred to him that people would give their allegiance to the constitution because all he sees when he looks at it is a piece of paper. He is blind to the virtues it strives to actualize because as a clinical narcissist he doesn't hold those qualities.
But he's learned his lesson. He now knows that to accomplish his unconstitutional goals he needs to surround himself with the scum of the earth, just like him. So that's what he's doing.
That's not loyalty. Narcissists are not capable of that.
-->
@Double_R
He now knows that to accomplish his unconstitutional goals he needs to surround himself with the scum of the earth, just like him.
So he surrounds himself with activist judges that cause constitutional crises. Good to know.
-->
@Greyparrot
The usual stupid and meaningless response. Just what I thought.
To someone Plato's cave looking at state media shadows, yes it is meaningless.