Santiago, Chile is rioting

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I don't think any of these claims is simply true, but the bolded claim is particularly false. The majority of Europe puts a 12 week limit on abortion by request. I'm not sure there's any European country that allows the abortion of a viable pregnancy beyond extreme circumstances.

Abortion on request past week 12? There are. Netherlands (21), Sweden (18) and the UK (24).

Also, Belgium removed abortion past 12 weeks from the penal code last year. It's still technically illegal, but no one bothers to prosecute anymore. Tho before that, Belgian authorities generally turned a blind eye, and I've never ever heard of any convictions for illegal abortion.

Can't speak for other European countries with the 12 week limit, but my guess is they also more or less tolerate it, at least in western/northern Europe. Even then, doctors can still get liberal in their interpretation of "medically necessary procedure", or refer the woman to a colleague who does. Or the woman just goes to a country with a higher limit.

as far as I know in western european nations people don't question existing abortion rights and the general trend is towards more liberty.

In general, no. Notable exceptions being the catholic clergy and ultraorthodox religious minorities.

 

[tstorm823]

You're correct, depending on the nation time limits can be more or less strict. But in contrario to the US, where some states continuously try to render abortions quasi impossible, as far as I know in western european nations people don't question existing abortion rights and the general trend is towards more liberty. That has been the main difference on quite some issues for quite some years now: the fact there is a strong conservative movement in many US states willing to take the US back to where it was 50 years ago on whatever social issue the US can consider itself "progressive". (and to not budge one iota on issues where the US can be definitely be considered (very) conservative)

As such, as years pass by, you end up more and more on the right of the rest of the "western" world.

So what you're saying is that if the US is right of Europe, it means it's right of Europe.

And if the US is way left of Europe such that people here think we're too far left, that also means it's right of Europe.

Sure.

 

[Saelune]

Also no, europe is not farther left than the US. Having universal healthcare is not enough. Too much of Europe still has monarchies, and no monarchy is further left than the US. (Not that Trump isnt trying to change that though.) That Euro-centric myth is just to make Europeans feel better that they are not the US. Meanwhile you have places like Poland and Turkey which are far-right and the UK is also right-wing, even besides the monarchy thing.

Yeah, no, quite a number of European nations (including monarchies) are more left-wing than the US. The UK isn't as much as it should be, and it's backsliding badly, and there are some far-right European nations as well, but that doesn't mean that the US is equal or more left wing than Europe as a whole.

Name them.

 

[Saelune]

Also no, europe is not farther left than the US. Having universal healthcare is not enough. Too much of Europe still has monarchies, and no monarchy is further left than the US. (Not that Trump isnt trying to change that though.) That Euro-centric myth is just to make Europeans feel better that they are not the US. Meanwhile you have places like Poland and Turkey which are far-right and the UK is also right-wing, even besides the monarchy thing.

Anyways, I was hoping you would actually answer this instead of deflecting it so we could actually have a real conversation without falling into bias, but you just want to condemn anything you consider 'communist' without considering what communism is, so I guess not.

The opposite of right-wing is not communism. You just call everything you disagree with communist.

I beg to differ, while certain eastern european nations are very conservative western continental europe is very much to the left of the US. Whether it be with regards to subsidizing higher education, healthcare, gay rights, abortion rights or even immigration. I mean it's so far to the left that we have to outsource any kind of immigration control to Turkey because no one wants to be "that guy". (And while Turkey partly falls into Europe geographically it's usually not considered as "European" culturally speaking).

But mind you that I said "Over here". Over here = My country = Belgium. I wasn't using "Europe" as a counter-example as Europe (including Eastern Europe and the UK) contains a very wide spectrum of economic and socio-cultural policies.
What I can assure you is that a corporate hack like Joe Biden would instantly be labeled as a "right wing ultra liberal rich people lover" over here. I mean politicians have been accused of causing a "social blood bath" for merely cutting a little bit in unemployment benefits.
Taking down universal healthcare or Increasing University tuition (which are ludicrously low)
won't get you elected in a million years over here. Yet most democrat politicians don't believe in accessible healthcare and education.

Meanwhile gays can marry and adopt and no party questions that (except one neo fascistic), people suffering from incurable diseases can ask for assisted suicide, we are a very popular destination among asylum seekers because we throw money and housing at anyone coming here and kicking out illegal immigrants is as hard as hell due to an army of left wing activist lawyers. Gun laws? Very strict. The only less left wing thing about us might be that canabis isn't legalized (unlike the US where some states have legalized it) but consumption is generally "tolerated" by law enforcement.

So yeah, your definition of right/left has no meaning here. You'd probably consider our traditional right wing as left wing saviors.

And I have not deflected anything. Pointing out it is impossible to give a specific definition of two broad political spectra is me just pointing out a fact.
Maybe you should question your constant urge to categorise people the way you do.

And where did I call everything I disagree with "Communist", don't project your tendency to abuse the words "Fascism" and "Nazi" onto others. I have merely used the atrocities caused by communism as an example to prove your assumption that right = bad and left = good is false. That doesn't mean left = bad or right = good. Both sides have their rights and wrongs and it also depends how far you're willing to push the ideologies.
Take individualism vs collectivism. Recognizing the value of individuals and the rights & freedoms which flow from that recognition is good, but pushed to an extreme it will come at the expense of the collective good. On the other hand recognizing that actions have an impact on others and that the "collectivity" has to be taken into account when judging actions is good. Pushing that to an extreme however leads to a total marginalization and subjugation of individuals to whatever is considered "the collective good" and you can say goodbye to "human rights".

It is much more interesting and valuable to discuss certain policies or specific ideologies (which can at least be somewhat defined) than trying to judge "the right" or "the left".

Its all human rights, all of it. Socially, economically, it is all motivated by how people view other people, always. The left/right thing is not complex, the 'complexity' comes from that it is a scale. Though right-wingers love to misconstrue it because they want to redifine the 'center' to be between right-wing, and far right-wing, so that being even moderately left is considered 'extreme'.

That doesn't make a lot of sense nor does it fit into how the left vs right dichotomy is commonly understood. For instance whenever there are economic debates the whole notion of "human rights" becomes moot. Worse, the right might actually be more able to claim being on the side of human rights. After all excessive taxation might very well be construed as unfair confiscation and a violation of people's property rights. And even on the socio-cultural axis it is not always that clear.
Is fining someone for making a racist comment on facebook a human rights issue (which can happen over here due to ever stricter anti discrimination laws)? Isn't the fining (and thus confiscation of property) a bigger human rights violation than someone's feelings potentially being hurt? What about freedom of speech in that case? As you can see human rights can conflict (and the definition of what is a human right) and when they conflict there is usually no pro "more" or "less" human rights but a different prioritization of rights.

And while certain US states are very conservative, some US states are very progressive. But we never want to take into account that the US is huge and that each state is like it's own country.

No, you cannot exclude Turkey while condemning the US as a whole. No picking and choosing here.

And Belgium is tiny compared to the US, and not as ethnically diverse. Yes, alot of these countries do have it easier when they dont have to deal with the diversity the US tends to. Considering how much right-wing is motivated by racism, it is 'more acceptable' for some to give health benefits to their own ethnicity than to another.

Left and Right work just fine, you just dont want to try.

Money is a Human Rights issue. The ability to feed and cloth yourself and have a roof over your head is a Human Rights issue, some people's desire to keep people they dont like from having those things is a Human Rights issue. Everything is a Human Rights issue when Humans are involved.

 

[Saelune]

Its all human rights, all of it. Socially, economically, it is all motivated by how people view other people, always. The left/right thing is not complex, the 'complexity' comes from that it is a scale. Though right-wingers love to misconstrue it because they want to redifine the 'center' to be between right-wing, and far right-wing, so that being even moderately left is considered 'extreme'.

It is complex, because it isn't all how people view each other. Left and right isn't pro-rights and anti-rights. It isn't about rights at all. Whether a right is left-wing or right-wing depends entirely on the right being discussed, and two things viewed as rights can be entirely contradictory. The 3rd amendment in the bill of rights is the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house without permission. It's a property right. Property rights are a right wing thing. I would absolutely extend that right beyond soldiers to the right not to house anyone without permission. You ask someone on the left, they'll tell you that housing is a human right. Now there's a right not to house people and a right to house people and it's conflicting right.

Left and right is a question of the power structures of a nation. Left is for equalized power structures, right is for hierarchical power structures. And that's motivated by more than just how people view other people. It's how people view other people, how people view society, and then how people view the role of government built out of those things. Take for example fascism vs communism: these two are tied up together for good reason, they share a paradigm of the world. A fascist and a communist both see individuals broken down by the classes of people the belong to, and they both see society as a constant conflict between these classes. It's just the communist thinks the government is responsible for eliminating all class divisions where the fascist sees the government as the tool to enforce them.

And I'm sure you're reading this right now thinking "yes, and the communist is the good guy". But not everyone is a fascist or a communist, and all of the options where you don't treat society in terms of class warfare are 1000% better than either. Hierarchy is not a difficult thing to defend once you break out of that fatalistic view. You may think "why should any one person be higher on the societal ladder than another" and the answer is "because one is a licensed pharmacist and the other is a meth dealer, and giving more power to the pharmacist is better for both parties". A republic is the expression of this: government decisions are not made by the people, rather the people award higher power in society to those they trust to make decisions for them. A republic is a hierarchy. That's why the right wing party is the Republican Party. A democracy would be equal power to all people. That's why the left wing party is the Democratic Party.

So like, the heart of your contention is about Communist dictatorships being left or right wing. And it's a weird question. Because communism is ideologically the most extreme left you can possibly be. Communism wants absolute equality: no societal divisions whatsoever. But a dictatorship is sort of the opposite of that. You could call that extreme right if you want, but it's not as though there's really a political viewpoint of "dictatorship for dictatorship's sake". It's not as though all of these communist regimes formed with right-wing intentions. But it's what it takes to tear down the structures of society. For the extreme left that wants to dismantle all inequalities even against the will of the individuals in that society, the government has to have greater power than all of society to tear those structures down. That's communist China. That's the Cultural Revolution. And that is unimaginable violence as a result of left-wing thought. And then once you tear down the structures of society, you find out people actually like structure in their life, and they give a dictator power. Every time. You can probably feel welcome to call that last step right wing, particularly relative to what preceded it. But it's not because right-wing politicians wanted a right-wing government, but rather because a left-wing government tried to destroy society and reality asserted itself.

Communism is a left-wing utopian vision. Utopia can never exist. You can call the final tragedy of Communism right-wing movement if you want, but what you can't do is blame it on people who are right wing because they view society as cooperation rather than class warfare and want to preserve it as a result.

I beg to differ, while certain eastern european nations are very conservative western continental europe is very much to the left of the US. Whether it be with regards to subsidizing higher education, healthcare, gay rights, abortion rights or even immigration.

I don't think any of these claims is simply true, but the bolded claim is particularly false. The majority of Europe puts a 12 week limit on abortion by request. I'm not sure there's any European country that allows the abortion of a viable pregnancy beyond extreme circumstances.

It is about equality. The Right wants the rights to abuse others and not be abused. The Left wants equality and to not let abusers have the right to abuse others.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also no, europe is not farther left than the US. Having universal healthcare is not enough. Too much of Europe still has monarchies, and no monarchy is further left than the US. (Not that Trump isnt trying to change that though.) That Euro-centric myth is just to make Europeans feel better that they are not the US. Meanwhile you have places like Poland and Turkey which are far-right and the UK is also right-wing, even besides the monarchy thing.

Yeah, no, quite a number of European nations (including monarchies) are more left-wing than the US. The UK isn't as much as it should be, and it's backsliding badly, and there are some far-right European nations as well, but that doesn't mean that the US is equal or more left wing than Europe as a whole.

Name them.

The Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway) have long been recognised as being leading countries in human rights issues (that is not to say perfect, of course). All three are monarchies.

The UK (also a monarchy) and France and Germany (not monarchies) are also (somewhat) to the left of the US.

The US is unusually rightwing for a western nation. That's not usually a controversial point.

 

[tstorm823]

It is about equality. The Right wants the rights to abuse others and not be abused. The Left wants equality and to not let abusers have the right to abuse others.

It's not. It's a political distinction, not a moral one. Left and right both want people to be happy, healthy, and wealthy. It's a disagreement on how a government should be run to reach those ends.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It is about equality. The Right wants the rights to abuse others and not be abused. The Left wants equality and to not let abusers have the right to abuse others.

It's not. It's a political distinction, not a moral one. Left and right both want people to be happy, healthy, and wealthy. It's a disagreement on how a government should be run to reach those ends.

The right wants its own people to be happy, at the cost of the rest.



Conservatism and anything related to it is rotten, no way around it.

 

[Saelune]

Also no, europe is not farther left than the US. Having universal healthcare is not enough. Too much of Europe still has monarchies, and no monarchy is further left than the US. (Not that Trump isnt trying to change that though.) That Euro-centric myth is just to make Europeans feel better that they are not the US. Meanwhile you have places like Poland and Turkey which are far-right and the UK is also right-wing, even besides the monarchy thing.

Yeah, no, quite a number of European nations (including monarchies) are more left-wing than the US. The UK isn't as much as it should be, and it's backsliding badly, and there are some far-right European nations as well, but that doesn't mean that the US is equal or more left wing than Europe as a whole.

Name them.

The Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway) have long been recognised as being leading countries in human rights issues (that is not to say perfect, of course). All three are monarchies.

The UK (also a monarchy) and France and Germany (not monarchies) are also (somewhat) to the left of the US.

The US is unusually rightwing for a western nation. That's not usually a controversial point.

I maintain that by default a monarchy kicks you from the running here.

UK is a mess. France is iffy, but sure, Germany. And the Scandinavian countries while progressive, are a White Supremacists' wet dream of mono-ethnic state. While they may not aspire to racial supremacy, not having a ton of diversity tends to make having to deal with that not an issue. But I am sure if there were alot more non-white people there, there would be a right-wing shift as they 'fear becoming a white minority'.

Dont get me wrong, the US is way too right-wing, but then, so is the rest of the world, and I honestly think 'We're more left-wing than the US atleast' is just what alot of Europeans tell themselves to feel better about their situations.

Look, I see this is becoming a pissing contest between the US and Europe, but either way, the problem is being right-wing is bad, and I am just sick of the over-generalization of 'Americans', cause it happens all the time.

 

[Saelune]

It is about equality. The Right wants the rights to abuse others and not be abused. The Left wants equality and to not let abusers have the right to abuse others.

It's not. It's a political distinction, not a moral one. Left and right both want people to be happy, healthy, and wealthy. It's a disagreement on how a government should be run to reach those ends.

The right want their own ethnicity and religion to be happy, healthy, and wealthy, while the rest are enslaved or exterminated.

It is always the right that looks to marginalize innocent people. Whether its the LGBT people, or the poor, or the racial minorities or people worshipping the 'wrong religion'.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The right wants its own people to be happy, at the cost of the rest.



Conservatism and anything related to it is rotten, no way around it.

Disagree there, a bit. Now, in practice certain groups get to be made (at least in theory) at the expense of others, and that can generally assumed to be the reason why it is desirable, there are some people who are fixated on the idea that the right will solve everything and who genuinely believe it. Normally people who are benefiting from the status quo and can't see or imagine anything better, for whom the problems are far away.

Like, anti-vaxxers are a terrible blight on society, but they presumably didn't become anti-vaxxers for that reason. Same applies to at least some libertarians.

I maintain that by default a monarchy kicks you from the running here.

Strongly disagree there. I happen to live in a country that's run (nominally) by a monarchy that's rather more leftwing than the US (but still too rightwing).

Otherwise, if asked if Canada (say) or the US is more rightwing, you'd have to answer Canada, and that is rather absurd. Or New Zealand.

Dont get me wrong, the US is way too right-wing, but then, so is the rest of the world, and I honestly think 'We're more left-wing than the US atleast' is just what alot of Europeans tell themselves to feel better about their situations.

That is absolutely true, but it doesn't make the statement "We're more left-wing than the US at least" incorrect. However, that almost always comes with the implication "So we don't have to do anything about whatever pressing social problem is being discussed", which is very different.

 

[generals3]

And while certain US states are very conservative, some US states are very progressive. But we never want to take into account that the US is huge and that each state is like it's own country.

No, you cannot exclude Turkey while condemning the US as a whole. No picking and choosing here.

And Belgium is tiny compared to the US, and not as ethnically diverse. Yes, alot of these countries do have it easier when they dont have to deal with the diversity the US tends to. Considering how much right-wing is motivated by racism, it is 'more acceptable' for some to give health benefits to their own ethnicity than to another.

Left and Right work just fine, you just dont want to try.

Oh yes there are certain states which are more or less conservative, no discussion here. But the general US trend still got someone like Donald Trump elected.

And no each US states are not like individual countries because you have an overarching US government. Just like here in Belgium, we may be a federal state with regional governments with more and more autonomy but as long as we have a federal government with strong overarching authority it's one nation.

And while we're a tiny nation I'm not sure why you'd assume we're not ethnically diverse? We have a strong Congolese community from our colonial era, there is a large Turkish community, a large Morrocan community and than lots of people from all over Europe.

And with the latest refugee crisis we are also having a large influx of all kinds of Arab/African nationalities.

For what it's worth: https://www.thebulletin.be/brussels-home-worlds-second-most-diverse-population

And I'm unsure why you're talking about "picking and chosing"? You're the one who defined "over here" as geographical Europe. Why compare a nation with a group of independent nations? When I make comparisons to "Europe" I usually try to be very specific and mention it's about "continental western Europe" exactly because I know Eastern Europe is very socially conservative, the UK is economically quite to the right and Turkey is... well... Turkey, a semi geographically european nation which shares more socio cultural elements with Arab nations than European nations. Right now you're the one who is picking and chosing what i supposedly meant, I never intended to compare an independent nation with a large blob of independent nations.

Money is a Human Rights issue. The ability to feed and cloth yourself and have a roof over your head is a Human Rights issue, some people's desire to keep people they dont like from having those things is a Human Rights issue. Everything is a Human Rights issue when Humans are involved.

So in essence your definition of left and right is "undefined"? After all right wingers are humans too. And so all the rights/privileges they vehemently defend are human rights issues. The ability to say nasty things about people (which they can freely ignore) is also a human rights issue, after all it's about humans being able to express themselves. So people who vehemently defend (quasi) absolute freedom of speech must be left wingers?
See that's the thing, the world and issues quite complex and likely more than you're willing to admit. You seem to assume that any stance you defend is the pro human rights stance without taking a moment to realize it's often a conflict between two human rights and you favoring one over the other.
That's not to say that there are no instances where one side clearly defends the destruction or weakening or human rights. But it's not always the case and it's often not clear cut.

Let's take the example of a real libertarian: He would be pro freedom for people on all the spectrum. He would have nothing against gays marrying, adopting, being able to do whatever job they are qualified for, they favor open borders, legalizing drugs and so on. But they are vehemently against taxes or regulations. Why? Because these are anti liberal concepts, government intervention would lead to lower freedom, which they consider a key human right. The only concession they are willing to make is to intervene when people use physical violence, steal, etc.. Basically when people violate other people's freedom to live, own, etc.

As you can see on one axis you'd probably love them and consider them "lefties" but on the other axis... not so much. Yet the disagreement is NOT about one side being more pro human rights or less pro human rights, it's about which human right prevails. One defines "freedom" as the top priority while the other is willing to partly give that up for the right to have a roof over your heads, have access to healthcare, education, etc.

It is about equality. The Right wants the rights to abuse others and not be abused. The Left wants equality and to not let abusers have the right to abuse others.

What kind of equality? Equality of opportunity? Equality of Outcome? And how do we define equality of opportunity?
And how to define "abusing"? Is hurting someone's feelings abuse? Is confiscating property abuse?

UK is a mess. France is iffy, but sure, Germany. And the Scandinavian countries while progressive, are a White Supremacists' wet dream of mono-ethnic state. While they may not aspire to racial supremacy, not having a ton of diversity tends to make having to deal with that not an issue. But I am sure if there were alot more non-white people there, there would be a right-wing shift as they 'fear becoming a white minority'.

You should probably travel to western European cities.

Dont get me wrong, the US is way too right-wing, but then, so is the rest of the world, and I honestly think 'We're more left-wing than the US atleast' is just what alot of Europeans tell themselves to feel better about their situations.

But was it the case in this discussion though? My intention was not to somehow present Europe as a leftist heaven/ideal, I was pointing out how applying your american centric left/right dichotomy doesn't work on other nations. The fact you brought up examples of "right wing" policies, which weren't applicable to Chile (like being anti universal healthcare), I alledgedly defended by questioning the "brilliance" of the current violent protests showed you made assumptions about what left & right mean in the rest of the world.

Look, I see this is becoming a pissing contest between the US and Europe, but either way, the problem is being right-wing is bad, and I am just sick of the over-generalization of 'Americans', cause it happens all the time.

This is not a pissing contest. Right wing US media outlets take particular pride not being like european "socialist hellholes". It's all a matter of which political ideology you defend. It's not like we're saying the US sucks. I don't have any issue admitting Belgium is less progressive than Northern European nations. But than again I'm not a leftist over here.

In essence this was all started by your wrong assumptions with regards to what "right wing" & "left wing" refer to outside the USA. And instead of accepting your mistake you felt desperate to defend the case that the US is more left wing than whatever blob of nations you thought I refered to. (which was again a wrong assumption about my intentions on your part)

 

[Satinavian]

I maintain that by default a monarchy kicks you from the running here.

There is not one (not dwarf state) European country where a monarch actually rules the country. They are all just figureheads without any political power

UK is a mess. France is iffy, but sure, Germany. And the Scandinavian countries while progressive, are a White Supremacists' wet dream of mono-ethnic state. While they may not aspire to racial supremacy, not having a ton of diversity tends to make having to deal with that not an issue. But I am sure if there were alot more non-white people there, there would be a right-wing shift as they 'fear becoming a white minority'.

Europe has had more than enough ethnic conflicts and minority issues. It hardly matters that those are not exactly the same ethicies/minorities the US cares about. And yes, even Scandinavia has those issues.

Dont get me wrong, the US is way too right-wing, but then, so is the rest of the world, and I honestly think 'We're more left-wing than the US atleast' is just what alot of Europeans tell themselves to feel better about their situations.

Look, I see this is becoming a pissing contest between the US and Europe, but either way, the problem is being right-wing is bad, and I am just sick of the over-generalization of 'Americans', cause it happens all the time.

The US is ridiculously righ wing compared to most of Europe. And that is not an over-generalization. Even the left wing states seem to be pretty right from our perspective. Just because they sometimes do stuff that most of Europe has done long ago and it is a big thing over there does not make them impressive if looked at from the outside.

It is not just healthcare. Take any of your leftwing states and look how its workers right work or how it treats the unemployed or poor, compare to e.g. Germany and weep. You can also try comsumer protection/environmental regulations. Or look at the education systems. Or any other topic that can be easily compared via hard numbers. And even with this status quo huge parts of the population feel that the inequality gets too high and more should be done about it. Being more left wing than the bizarro-nation USA is not something to be complacent about.