politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The problem with this "both sides" bullshit is that leftist critique is nearly always targeted at systems, as opposed to reactionary 'brainwashing' is targeted at minorities
A "radical leftist" isn't out to murder anyone, they're out to disrupt the system. As far as I'm concerned, the problem is almost entirely a reactionary politics problem, not a problem of firearm training and not even one of mental health (though they are contributing factors(
Don't conflate libratory movements with reactionary terrorism
I am honestly loving your take on the subject. It actually made me think a little about what you are saying and the fact you are very respectful in your wording is wonderful.
Can you explain reactionary brainwashing of minorities a bit further?
Many far leftists I have run into have been very controversial or just plain rude so having someone speak plainly and respectfully is a nice change of pace.
I find your lack of irony refreshing, too.
I'm confused by your question though, can you clarify your choice of using the word 'of' in the question "brainwashing of minorities"?
It's so rare to run into a reactionary conservative that's so curious about left-leaning politics, thank you for your curiosity
I try to keep my perspective unbiased which is difficult because I am human after all. When conversing with someone that brings up interesting perspectives and does not devolve to name calling I try to speak with them further because those are the ones who's reasoning skills tend to be more developed and make for better conversations over all.
From how I understood what you were saying, there is a reactionary brainwashing of sorts. Perhaps I was incorrect in my belief that you meant of minorities specifically. I may have read it incorrectly.
Thanks for acknowledging your imperfect interpretation.
I used scarequotes in the phrase you are referencing, perhaps that is where your confusion is stemming from? Brainwashing was used in your comment, I was simply making a reference to your usage.
The point: reactionary politics identifies the "outsider" as the subject of opposition. Radical leftist politics identifies oppressive systems as the subject of opposition.
Hence: the use of firearms by one group is simply not comparable to the use by the other.
Hopefully that clarifies things for you.
Yes it does, I appreciate that. Thank you.
Would you agree that reactionary politics is highly based on raised emotions or high tension to the outsider? Or perhaps a lack of understanding? Or maybe a lack of depth in sight?
When identifying an oppressive system what are the markers of such a system? What qualifies as oppressive? Is it subjective to an individual or is there a science behind it?
Reactionary politics is less a coherent ideological framework and more a reflexive rejection of social change. It's almost by definition oriented against minority social groups.
Oppressive systems exist in all types, and there's a great deal of study that deals with it. If you're genuinely curious to learn more, I'm Foucault is who I am most familiar with and would recommend for anyone wanting to know more about structural analysis.
I appreciate that information. I will look into it. I appreciate your willingness to speak with me on these matters. It is always nice having civil conversations. I hope you have some wonderful days ahead and happy holidays.
Thank you both for the interesting discussion!