As this seems a gently Left leaning forum — unimportant

Do you think people who are left of the extreme right and Trump to be left leaning? I don't think this forum is very left leaning, I think it's pretty balanced. But it is generally the case that conservatives on the right don't care about rational reasoning or established science. This is built into what it means to be a conservative, i.e the established values of the past are more important than what any science or reasoning in the present says.

So when a forum is dedicated to rational reasoning, scientific scrutiny and philosophical discussion, it tends to clean out much of the narrow thinking that the conservative right, by design, does.

It is fundamentally impossible to be truly philosophical and also adhere to a conservative right-wing ideology as that positioning is evangelically rigid.

With that said, the Trump regime and MAGA cult does however not work according to conservative rightwing values and ideas. They're essentially without any ideas or visions. If you actually track what they say over time, there's no structure, no center point; they essentially pick up any topic and go in any direction that builds their community, especially if it organizes them against something or some people.

It is the behaviors of a cult, taken advantage of by a leader (or rather, leaders) who know how to manipulate and steer them in order to have support for whatever vile agenda they put forward. It's the same for Trump, RFK and everyone at the top.

It's no wonder that the MAGA movement have grown out of evangelical christian fundamentalists. If you want to have a following that will take a bullet for you, then rein in the gullible religious people into your influence and you will have a following that will support you in whatever you say.

Normal republicans, or people on the right need to wake up to the fact that Trump and his cult is a cancer on their side. The problem is that the republican party is so filled with people who are just interested in their own journey as politicians that they bend over for this cult as long as they can continue this journey.

Most of them are so blind to the consequences of this that they will realize too late that they've been dragged down into the lunatic wing of the right.

Trump is kind of silly and people don't take him seriously. Well a lot do since he is elected. — unimportant

It doesn't matter if people take him seriously or not. His policies hurt people, his policies and decisions have lead to the deaths of people. I think it's important not to be blind by the indirect causes of his actions and decisions, and the actions and decisions of people around him.

Just because he's a laughing stock doesn't mean the consequences of his decisions and actions are.

The entire entity that is the MAGA right and Trump and his closest in power, is in fact a fascist movement. And as such shouldn't be taken lightly.

Historically, it's the apathy of the people that brings forth fascism, acting only when it's too late to act.

The political advantage of RFK for T is that he pulled in the people who believe those kind of stories. That is it.

The group being solicited is deemed by the operation to be necessary for their future existence.

The political advantage of RFK for T is that he pulled in the people who believe those kind of stories. That is it. — Paine

You're referring to conspiracy theorists - a large segment of Trump's base. Had RFK stayed in the race, he could have pulled some of them away from Trump.

It seems clear that such an appeal to the base is still high on the agenda.

I don't think this forum is very left leaning — Christoffer

Oh, its definitely left leaning.

In what way?

On the staff we have between 2 and 2.5 Marxists, 2 left-liberals, and 2 conservatives. I guess that's more left than right.

Yet, there's also a point to be made that many arguments that rely on facts tend to be called leftist. There's far more climate science deniers or general deniers of scientific results on the conservative right... so if a human's best attempt to reach a truth based on facts and scientific data is considered "leftist", then I guess that tells more about the political spectrum than that this forum is "unbalanced".

And even so, conservatives can make their points and arguments in here anyway, there's nothing removed because of that. But if people think hate speech or similar is just a matter of politics, then that's maybe the fault of that person and not a forum that aims to reach for a higher level of discourse than the usual online climate.

If this place seems leaning towards the left... it may have more to do with who actually seeks discussions and knowledge rather than some "agenda" by the mods.

Yet, there's also a point to be made that many arguments that rely on facts tend to be called leftist. There's far more climate science deniers or general deniers of scientific results on the conservative right... so if a human's best attempt to reach a truth based on facts and scientific data is considered "leftist", then I guess that tells more about the political spectrum than that this forum is "unbalanced". — Christoffer

I don't agree with any of this, and I'm very left.

I don't agree with any of this, and I'm very left. — Jamal

How do you mean?

Are we not seeing primarily conservative rightwingers deny climate science or, for the purpose of this thread, medical science? Isn't it often the right that confuse hate speech, racist remarks etc. with politics, then defending themselves with "it's free speech"?

Whenever I see arguments about some place being left leaning, it usually tends to be about rightwingers science denial demanding their arguments to be taken seriously, even if facts are against them.

Although, the whole "left vs right" polarization is something I feel is such a low point overall. What people attribute to left and right seems arbitrary or bound to whatever definitions culturally they have in their own nations and life. "left" and "right" in Sweden is for the most part left of Democrats in the US, so discussions nationally in Sweden about "left" and "right" tend to look very different than in the US.

Maybe people should stop calling themselves and others "leftwinger" or "rightwinger" in discussions that has nothing to do with economic politics. Because someone like RFK, could exist on either side of the spectrum, it's just that he got a home on the right because the republicans have incorporated ideas into their party and policy that comes from the conspiracy theories of the MAGA movement. So everything is about being against trans, gay, medical science as well as outright racism, I'm surprised they didn't have room for flat earth as well, seen as how in denial RFK makes the party towards medical science that helps people and children from dying.

None of that has anything to do with rightwing economic politics really, and it doesn't even have much to do with classical conservative values.

The "left vs right" has just become the way the polarized world brands itself. It's become a marketing tool for both sides to strawman the other and protect the self.

Yet, true knowledge based on facts doesn't care about such arbitrary labels we place on ourselves and others. It's just tribalism.

How do you mean? — Christoffer

I meant that I'm not on board with your rhetoric. Anyway I only came in here to shed some light on the political leanings of TPF. In any case, the conservatives on the staff are no more ignorant of the facts than the others, as far as I can see. Facts have nothing to do with it, and in general the accusation that the other side ignores the facts is thrown from both sides. It's a nothing argument, on its own.

the conservatives on the staff are no more ignorant of the facts than the others, as far as I can see. — Jamal

I was speaking generally of the current political climate. I know "conservative" isn't a description of "a person denying facts".

Facts have nothing to do with it, and the accusation that the other side ignores the facts is thrown from each side. It's a nothing argument, on its own. — Jamal

As I elaborated on.

Fine, carry on.

Yes there are some intelligent conservatives. They don’t last long in political party’s these days, they get pushed out by the populists. So those intelligent conservatives tend to get tarred with the populist brush.

Been in the lounge lately? I am not being all that serious, because I'm not bothered by the lean, but there are several heavy posters who are obviously and somewhat aggressively left:

Yourself
Mikie
180
Punnsh
Jamal
ssu
jorndoe
Relativist
Wayfarer

among many others. Again, no particular issue with it. Most 'clubs' as such have a lean. Philosophy is quite left-leaning in general.
I'm on the left myself, as a box-ticking claim. Quite firmly, actually. But we do not get, for instance, the type of robust, detail-laden responses to some of the left-wing wittering about Trump (and I'm not the one to give it, so don't come at me lol. All i could do it post links). Just commenting that there's clearly a left lean to this club too :)

And even so, conservatives can make their points and arguments in here anyway, there's nothing removed because of that. But if people think hate speech or similar is just a matter of politics, then that's maybe the fault of that person and not a forum that aims to reach for a higher level of discourse than the usual online climate. — Christoffer

This is an unfortunate example that I am glad Jamal seems to have pushed back on.

Hate Speech is amorphous, and largely spurious. We can talk about what speech you find offensive, but using a label "hate speech" is a cudgel and nothing more. But on the Left, its a darling to shut down conversation. As we've seen with Kirk.

there are several heavy posters who are obviously and somewhat aggressively left — AmadeusD

How does that make the entire forum lean left? And what is your criticism through that? Isn't that just a genetic fallacy ignoring ideas based on their own merits?

Most 'clubs' as such have a lean. — AmadeusD

There's no club... at least, I'm not invited into any club. So it sounds more like conspiratorial thinking in which you group together some people in order to categorically frame them based on the attributes you ascribe, rather than their actual writing.

I write my own ideas to the best of my ability. That they sometime align with other people's thinking is just called humanity.

Philosophy is quite left-leaning in general. — AmadeusD

And why do you think that is?

Hate Speech is amorphous, and largely spurious. We can talk about what speech you find offensive, but using a label "hate speech" is a cudgel and nothing more. — AmadeusD

Hate speech is only ever confusing and amorphous among people who seem unable to recognize it as opposed to human rights. If human rights, in a basic Kantian way, stands for the respect of the individual or a group defined by some defining trait, to exist as "an end in themselves", then speaking of that individual or group in a way that lowers their existential value compared to the speaker themselves, is what falls under hate speech.

It's not rocket science, or what people find "offensive". It's recognizing when someone dehumanizes others for reasons that isn't them already dehumanizing themselves.

But on the Left, its a darling to shut down conversation. As we've seen with Kirk. — AmadeusD

What do you mean by this? Are you blaming the left for his murder?

And Kirk wasn't involved with "conversation", he used the idea of free speech "debate to find a platform to scream out dehumanizing hate against homosexuals, transexuals and proposed white supremacy ideals. To say the left "shut down conversation" as if Kirk was trying to enable any actual conversation, is seriously lacking in depth about what he was doing. Not being able to recognize his behavior for what it is, and just falling into the post-assassination narrative of the US conservative right, or rather the christo-fascist movement that's grown under Trump and Maga, is just a sign of times in which the world has begun to normalize white supremacy speech, and with Kirk, using him as a martyr for it. What did the conservative right do after his assassination? White washing what he spread around by silencing anyone who criticized Kirk for what he actually said, pushing companies to fire people for criticizing Kirk. Through the actual evidence of the behavior of how the right and left reacted to the assassination, do you really think it's the left who's "offended" and going against free speech? The conservative right basically uses state force to silence anyone who criticizes Kirk's values and what he actually spread around in his podcasts and rallies.

And how is it that our world is now "the left" that criticize anti-scientific, white supremacy, fascist ideals? Usually, both the left AND the right did so. But instead of recognizing that the right has been infiltrated by such extreme right ideas and anti-intellectual nonsense, the right seems to have just accepted being assimilated into those values and ideas.

The question isn't really what the left is doing or criticizing... the question is rather, why is the right silent in their criticism about things they were equally opposed to before? Why did the right let themselves be turned into a christo-fascist movement, populated by actual white supremacists and nationalist populists? How did they go from neoliberal economic policies to burning books and banning LGBTQ people?

If people see this as just normal, then I think people are blind to the fact that nothing of this is about the left or the right in any shape or form. It's about decent people standing for human values against people who want to put a boot on other people's faces.

I'm closing this because it's low-quality and has run its course.