- 09 Apr 2017 15:25
#14795381
The left has a history of being associated with opposing not just nationalist prejudice for the sake of equality, but also opposing the anti-intellectual folk community common sense which encourages rugged individualism. It is looked upon as a movement that cares about civil rights to prevent people from getting ahead by screwing over others around them. It rejected retributive justice because it understands how the rule of law and order can be corrupted by special interests, and in a competitive environment, it will be corrupt. Those who don't corrupt are abandoned to fall through the cracks since they don't entertain, excite, and satisfy as much as those who do corrupt. Therefore, it substituted retributive with redistributive justice to compensate victims of abuse instead of depending on the unreliability of a potentially corrupt system.
The problem with this is it has enabled people to get away with criminal behavior in the first place which is comparable to the right's original rugged individualism. The only difference between those who believe in abuse, negligence, blaming of victims, and telling victims on a ruggedly individualist basis to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and deal with it...
...versus those who believe in tolerating wise guys, lazy bums, and screw balls to mooch and leech off of others while refusing to hold people responsible for their actions or else we're pushing our values onto them...
...is semantics.
In fact, culture today is increasingly bridging the divide between redneck hillbillies from trailer parks and ghetto gangstas from the school of hard knocks. We are increasingly seeing a society where people say that others had to deal with your problems too, so what makes you special? Instead of fixing problems to make the world a better place, problems are allowed to fester. Egalitarianism has met anti-elitism. Whether it's because of predatory, defensive, spiteful, or envious motives, we are increasingly living in a world where the pursuit of success and excellence is sabotaged behind the notion that tolerance is more than what needs to be done. Society can get by from doing what's merely sufficient instead.
This "negative egalitarianism" as I call it convinces people that the left is no longer the movement of liberation that stands up for civil rights. Does it persuade people to join the right? Not necessarily, but it does convince people that the left is no longer a movement to believe in. It is not a movement that upholds respect. In fact, we very deliberately saw this during the recent presidential election where Hillary was celebrated as a "nasty woman" to mock Trump's label of her. The left has embraced screwing around instead of contrasting itself against the right for screwing people over.
The problem with this is it has enabled people to get away with criminal behavior in the first place which is comparable to the right's original rugged individualism. The only difference between those who believe in abuse, negligence, blaming of victims, and telling victims on a ruggedly individualist basis to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and deal with it...
...versus those who believe in tolerating wise guys, lazy bums, and screw balls to mooch and leech off of others while refusing to hold people responsible for their actions or else we're pushing our values onto them...
...is semantics.
In fact, culture today is increasingly bridging the divide between redneck hillbillies from trailer parks and ghetto gangstas from the school of hard knocks. We are increasingly seeing a society where people say that others had to deal with your problems too, so what makes you special? Instead of fixing problems to make the world a better place, problems are allowed to fester. Egalitarianism has met anti-elitism. Whether it's because of predatory, defensive, spiteful, or envious motives, we are increasingly living in a world where the pursuit of success and excellence is sabotaged behind the notion that tolerance is more than what needs to be done. Society can get by from doing what's merely sufficient instead.
This "negative egalitarianism" as I call it convinces people that the left is no longer the movement of liberation that stands up for civil rights. Does it persuade people to join the right? Not necessarily, but it does convince people that the left is no longer a movement to believe in. It is not a movement that upholds respect. In fact, we very deliberately saw this during the recent presidential election where Hillary was celebrated as a "nasty woman" to mock Trump's label of her. The left has embraced screwing around instead of contrasting itself against the right for screwing people over.