The main thing I don't like about these categories is how they try to lump both moral and political issues into one group as either right or left. They're two different things. Societies do legislate morality, but as far as defining a person's overall views I think it's a poor metric. Personally I have some left views politically, but some right views morally.
I think it can be expected people participating in the Fediverse are somewhat anti-capitalist. We come here to get away from corporate driven media. That being the case I think it's not erroneous to say Lemmy is more left politically and I appreciate that. However that does not mean I agree with all left views. There are some moral issues I may not agree with, but I don't engage since I'm not interested in debating morality in these forums.
This. There an infinite number of ideologies that you could have, but our first past the post voting system (in the US) only allows for two candidates, so an infinite spectrum gets funneled into two camps.
I think that's what they're saying: in most of the world it's used as a gradient/spectrum, just a few countries consider it absolutes (you're either left or right).
Yeah, that's why I specified US, there are plenty of places where it's more of a gradiant, or where left and right are just two of many options. although unfortunately fptp is the norm in most of the world. The US is unusually polarized even among fptp countries, but countries that have better voting systems that allow for more than two parties are the exception, not the norm.
countries that have better voting systems that allow for more than two parties are the exception, not the norm.
Are you sure about that? I have no numbers to back it up, but at least here in Europe many countries have more than two parties to choose from, and the winning parties form a governing coalition (alliance).
Unless by beter voting system you mean something like Ranked voting etc, in which case I agree, that is unfortunately very rare.
It's a whopping two sides of a scale, which doesn't unambiguously refer to "individualism" or "collectivism", also referring vaguely to associations with dozens of other issues. So it's actually a worse way of describing those ideas than saying "individualist" or "collectivist", because you're no longer even specifically saying that. And "individualist" vs. "collectivist" is already a terrible way to categorize all political ideas. What does abortion have to do with collectivism? How about zoning laws, or environmental protection?
This is the issue...left vs. right has nothing to do with any one issue, in fact it actually serves completely to distract people from the specifics of issues, because instead of actually figuring out the nuance of something, people fall back on their group identity and go, "well if the leftists hate it, then it must be good, because fuck the left!"
Sure, I'll just make up my own political philosophy outta nothing, without the benefit of other's experience, and then use it to classify and understand all the political thought I encounter which has not been informed by my pet philosophy, that'll go GREAT
I'm not gonna start using niche political terms on a daily basis. Yes, I know that Democrats and Republicans are basically the same but nobody outside a small group of people cares. See that I put both in quotation marks as well.
to be fair, you wouldn't say that Democrats or republicans are the same if you happen to be part of the groups the Republicans are currently advocating death for. There is a difference between NeoLiberal shill and "America should be a white ethnostate"
I mean, sure one could argue that the Rights attacks on trans and LGBTQ people, calling them all pedophiles that need to be exterminated can be seen as a "right to exist" argument, in the same way that “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” can be seen as a "right to exist" statement...
It think it's more that, like with everything to do with Politics, the words have been repeatedly redefined by people who wanted to obtain the support of pre-existing tribalists emotionally bound to one or the other as "tribe" markers, and what is now said to be Left and Right is the product of a lot of such manipulation.
As I see it there is definitelly a range between the pure selfish "I do what's best for me and fuck everybody else" thinking and acting and the entirelly selfless "think of everybody else" one and somewhere in between sits a vague border one side of which can be thought of "left" and the other "right".