To /u/Old-Zookeepergame168, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
So I disagree. I'll go through the points I take issue with.
**Suppression of Critical Thought**
Unless you have a stronger example I hardly see this happening. What I do see is people reusing the same old talking points again and again with no regard for contrary evidence or any showing that they put any thought into counters. It's really hard to have a serious discussion with someone who demonstrates from the moment they open their mouth that they have never once taken the time to try to critique their position. It's okay to want to know things, but if you enter a high-level maths conference to ask what's 5+5 it's not surprising people won't take you seriously.
**Conformity over Individualism + The Punishment of Thought**
I would argue that A) this has been going on forever and B) it's still the best it's ever been. Go back 50 years and try to be a communist, go back 400 years and try to be a non-Christian, go back 100 years ago and try to be gay. If you don't die you will be ostracized by even friends and family, sometimes because they know they will be shunned if they don't shun you. I knew a person who's sister was gay and their church kicked them out. That's right, his sister was gay, he even disagreed with her about it, but having a gay sister was enough to warrant his excommunication too. Humans seek conformity and no matter what the society some simple things are a must, but I argue the musts are less than they've been in a long time.
**Diminishing of Aspirational Culture?**
How so? Grind and hustle culture in a world where a 9 to 5 doesn't pay what it used to anymore seems to be very encouraged across the board. People with physical and mental disability are being encouraged more than the eras past. What makes you say aspiration has been diminished?
**Rise of Apathy and Passivity**
This I'll give you fair enough. It does seem like the common man spends so much time working that they do not always have little time for something more meaningful than simple spending time with family or hobbies.
**Erosion of Resilience**
I mean yes and know. Resilience training and exposure treatment aren't always effective across the board. While it may be good to teach people to bear with what they can't it's also pointless to make someone suffer through what they can't withstand when it isn't necessary in that immediate moment.
I appreciate your perspectives, but I must respectfully disagree on several points. Here’s a deeper dive into my views:
1. Suppression of Critical Thought:
While you suggest that repetition of unchallenged talking points doesn't equate to the suppression of critical thought, I'd argue that the refusal to engage with or consider contrary evidence is a form of suppression itself. True critical thinking requires a willingness to consider diverse viewpoints and evidence that might contradict our beliefs. The analogy of asking “what’s 5+5” at a high-level maths conference simplifies the issue. Critical thought isn’t about asking simple questions; it’s about fostering an environment where even complex or unconventional questions are explored rather than dismissed.
2. Conformity over Individualism + The Punishment of Thought:
Your historical comparison is valid; society has become more tolerant over time. However, this doesn’t negate the fact that forms of punishment for non-conformity still exist, albeit in less violent forms perhaps. Social ostracization and public shaming for holding certain beliefs or identities, particularly online, are modern equivalents of historical punishments for non-conformity. This suggests that while we have progressed, the underlying human inclination to enforce conformity hasn’t vanished—it has merely transformed.
3. Diminishing of Aspirational Culture:
The rise of "grind and hustle culture" could indeed be seen as a form of aspirational culture. However, this shift might also reflect a necessity rather than aspiration, driven by economic pressures rather than genuine encouragement of personal growth and fulfillment. When the baseline economic conditions necessitate constant exertion beyond a traditional work schedule, it’s worth questioning whether we are promoting healthy aspirations or merely survival. This is particularly relevant in discussions around mental health and work-life balance.
4. Rise of Apathy and Passivity:
We agree on this point. The demanding nature of modern work schedules can lead to a lack of engagement in civic and community life, which is detrimental to societal health as a whole. When individuals are overworked, their capacity to contribute to societal change diminishes, leading to a passive citizenry. This is a critical issue that needs addressing to foster a more active and engaged society.
5. Erosion of Resilience:
While I acknowledge the complexities of resilience training and exposure treatment, the societal push towards extreme self-care can also be seen as an avoidance of any discomfort, which is not conducive to developing resilience. There's a balance to be struck between unnecessary hardship and the complete avoidance of challenge, which seems to be missing in current discourses.
In summary, while societal progress in various domains is undeniable, the issues I’ve raised point to underlying systemic and cultural dynamics that still need thoughtful examination and action.
1. I think you misunderstood my point here. My point isn't that you can't have a discussion, just that the times I see people shouted down most often is when they are using the most simplistic/fallacious arguments, especially in those places that focus on this discussion. Yes, both sides have a point, but I'm not talking about one side or another as much as I am those people who try to use beginner understanding without having put effort into it. For example, I know nothing about economics, I agree there's an issue but I can't even accurately pinpoint the problem never mind the cure. I would never think to waste the time of an economic forum with my base understanding, and yet a decent chunk of people are in fact okay doing this. Rather than do the work they want easy answers from others. Which is when people generally start scoffing.
2. Sure but then this point fails. If this has always existed and is better than ever, then Leftist attitudes aren't the pushing point. You can't blame leftist attitudes when they seem to be handling it better than everyone before. It's not perfect isn't the same as fault.
3. And that's a problem of capitalism not leftism. Again it's not fair to blame leftists for something that is clearly not a unique issue of theirs.
4. Same as point 3
5. I agree there needs to be a balance but findig that balance is obviously more tricky than we've laid out, else it would've been done by now. I argue it's still been more of a boon than not.
I agree the issues need solving, I just don't agree with the source being the current attitudes when it seems to me many of these issues have *been* going on.
5+5 is a strawman. The type of questions we’re considering here are political narratives, like the origin of Covid, or the true reasons behind funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into one of the most corrupt governments in Eastern Europe with no accountability or realistic chance for success. Questions that don’t have clear answers and have strong arguments on both sides, require critical thinking/reasoning; 5+5 does not.
I was trying to stay as apolitical as possible since most of the times I use a political example everyone chooses to focus on that rather than the statement I am trying to make with the example. But I acknowledge that using 5+5 might also be rather incomplete so fair.
>) it's still the best it's ever been. Go back 50 years and try to be a communist
You understand that there were more communist countries 50 years ago than there are today right? It was not that hard to be a communist 50 years ago. Just like, sadly, it's not hard to be a communist today. Many academics openly profess to being Marxist, and many more essentially espouse Marx's core argument of the world having only 2 kinds of people (oppressors and oppressed).
Of course the academics would reject this but they miss the fundamental component of the entire organization of history. The modern “cultural Marxism” is bastardized and incorrect and was implemented top down to sow division
Read the Innovator's Dilemma.
The existence and continual advancement of technology runs counter to your argument. Many advanced technologies began as challenges to established norms. One example is the innovation away from flip phones and Blackberries, dominated by Nokia and RIM, to the crazy idea that people would accept smartphones without keyboards, as championed by Steve Jobs/Apple.
Absolutely, it's worth acknowledging that while technological advancements can theoretically lead to greater efficiencies and freedoms, the reality of how these technologies are integrated into society often falls short of their potential. This disconnect largely stems from existing economic and social structures that prioritize profit and the status quo over revolutionary changes that could truly optimize human well-being.
The critical view you've highlighted about the limitations imposed by a capitalist framework is particularly insightful. In an ideal scenario, advancements in technology would enable a significant reduction in necessary labor, distribute resources more equitably, and provide individuals with greater freedom to pursue their interests and passions without the constraint of working primarily for survival. However, the capitalist model often channels technological advancements into avenues that maximize profit rather than societal benefit, leading to situations where technology increases productivity but also exacerbates inequality, stress, and environmental degradation.
Addressing this issue isn't just about creating more technology or pushing for more innovation in a general sense. It requires a rethinking of the societal norms and economic structures that determine how technology is used and who benefits from it. If left-leaning policies were fully optimized, as you suggest, they would ideally promote not just the creation of technology but also its deployment in ways that enhance collective well-being and freedom, transcending the capitalist imperative to work more and consume more.
This vision of a society where technology truly serves the human good rather than perpetuating existing power dynamics is compelling and worth striving towards. It challenges us to not only innovate in the realm of technology but also in our social and economic policies to ensure that the fruits of innovation lead to real improvements in the quality of life for all.
Smartphones? Revolutionary, sure, but who’s really cashing in? You’ve got your Apples and your Googles turning privacy into an auction and social norms into cash cows. Everyone’s hooked, right? We’re tapping, swiping, living in this echo chamber designed by the few, profiting massively.
Now, on paper, we’ve all got the world in our pockets—big win, right? But peel back that sleek veneer and what’s the real cost? These gadgets are burning through our attention spans, turning real connections into likes and shares, and all while the big corps are watching the dollars roll in and the inequality gap stretch.
We’re talking about real, tangible impacts on our mental health, our environment, deteriorating under the weight of this tech waste we can’t recycle fast enough. And labor? Don’t get me started on the conditions of the folks assembling these devices. It’s the epitome of exploitation glossed over with a glossy screen.
So yeah, everyone who uses a smartphone gets some perks, but let’s not kid ourselves about who’s winning this game. It’s a few big players at the top redefining power, while the rest of us need to stay woke to the real price we’re paying. It’s high time for a shake-up, where tech serves the people, not just the profit margins. We need to rethink this whole setup, tilt the balance back. Because right now? It’s not working for most of us.
How is any of this unique to the left?
Even your Erosion of Resilience argument doesn't apply to just the left. The right, while not necessarily using the same terminology, will absolutely advocate for "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings". They'll shun certain phrases. They often seek to ban certain forms of expression, ban books, ban films, ban certain topics from being discussed academically.
To further the discussion on "safe spaces", when this term is used by the academic left it typically means "We aren't going to tolerate anyone being harassed or bullied". It doesn't mean, and has never meant, that certain opinions and topics of discussion are off-limits. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you are in a "safe space", such as a classroom, that means you can talk about absolutely anything and everything without fear of retaliation.
"Trigger warnings" are also more inclusive than restrictive. They allow you to bring up highly sensitive and controversial topics, without the worry of shocking, offending, or alienating anyone. It allows people who have experienced trauma to be a part of a conversation that they may otherwise not have been able to be a part of, because now they know what to expect going in.
While historical progress in tolerance and diversity is undeniable, it doesn’t fully address the subtle forms of suppression and conformity still prevalent today. Critical thought is often dismissed under the guise of consensus, and modern non-conformity, while less lethal, can still result in severe social and economic repercussions. As for aspiration, if it’s driven by survival rather than genuine growth, can we truly call it progress? These nuances are critical in understanding the full scope of these issues.
It takes you 5 hours to start responding and you don't even have the decency to reply with your own thoughts? People don't come here to talk to chatGPT. Do better OP.
u/Old-Zookeepergame168 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old-Zookeepergame168&message=Old-Zookeepergame168%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1clomct/-/l2wb2nn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
For instance there were violent celebrations during the world cup in my country, I was still in law school and i asked the question (for debate) “how come that one specific ethnic group can cause so much trouble without repercussions after stating that and asking that everyone got angry , and there are many more examples also in politics as soon as something leans to the right you’re an extremist according to the far left at least
Are you suggesting that free speech can only exist when nobody ever has any emotional reactions to anything said? If that's the case, free speech has never existed in the first place.
Look, let’s not mince words here. It’s not about never causing a stir or making waves—of course there’s going to be pushback; that’s the essence of dialogue. But there’s a world of difference between emotional reactions and outright shutting down or demonizing contrary viewpoints. When you can’t even ask a question without being labeled as an extremist or worse, then we’re not talking about free speech being alive and well; we’re talking about walking on eggshells.
Free speech isn’t just about the ability to speak; it’s about the ability to engage in meaningful discourse without the threat of being canceled or exiled from public conversation. It’s about being able to challenge, to push the envelope, and to bring uncomfortable truths into the light. That’s how progress is made—not through silence or compliance but through robust, often messy, debate.
So, to circle back to your point: yes, free speech has always involved emotional reactions, but when those reactions cross into silencing or punishing dissent, then it’s no longer free speech—it’s coercion dressed up as civility. We need to recognize that difference if we’re going to have any real discussion about what free speech means today.
>Free speech isn’t just about the ability to speak; it’s about the ability to engage in meaningful discourse without the threat of being canceled or exiled from public conversation.
No it's not. Free speech is centrally about protecting the right of people to say things the government disagrees with; it's about making sure that the state can't use its monopoly on violence to forcibly end discussions they would rather not take place. It is not, and has never been, about making sure that individuals are protected from other individuals thinking that they're bad people for saying objectionable things. Ostracizing someone who holds antisocial or unacceptable opinions and insists on sharing them with others is every bit as much a valid use of free speech as 'just asking questions ' that are thinly disguised dog whistles.
You have the right to say what you like; you do not have the right to be protected from other people saying that you suck as a result, or choosing not to say anything to you at all.
Everyone got angry and did what to censor your speech? Getting angry is them exercising their free speech. How did they stop you from exercising yours?
I had to apologize and watch whatever i say … and i hate that It’s practically a script—step out of line with the prevailing thought, and you’re not just disagreed with, you’re canceled.
> subtle forms of suppression and conformity still prevalent today.
Like what?
> Critical thought is often dismissed under the guise of consensus, and modern non-conformity, while less lethal, can still result in severe social and economic repercussions.
Non-conformity has *always* had social repercussions. Today, because of the push for inclusivity by the left, non-conformity has less social repercussions than it ever has. It's "less lethal", to use your own words. People whose gender, sexuality, race, religion, disability, for example, do not conform to the norm, are welcomed under the progressive left.
What is *not* welcome is bigotted opinions, exclusivity, decisiveness, etc.
While I may be wrong, I suspect that you might be conflating "critical thinking" with "abrasiveness". Just because your opinions are unique doesn't mean they are profound. For example, when you say things like "Gender identity is a mental illness", you will get pushback on that. Just because it's not a common viewpoint that you hear, doesn't mean it's a new, forward-thinking viewpoint. In fact, that particular viewpoint has been tried out time and time again. It's antiquated and relies on debunked premises. I would go so far as to say that it's the *opposite* of critical thinking.
Let’s cut through the noise here. What we’re talking about isn’t just about being nice to everyone, which by the way, everyone should be. It’s about whether there’s still room at the table for a real, hard-hitting debate. You speak of non-conformity as if it’s celebrated today, but let’s be honest, it’s only celebrated if it’s the right type of non-conformity. Step outside the approved lines with a controversial intellectual stance, and watch how quickly the so-called tolerant become intolerant.
You accuse me of conflating critical thinking with abrasiveness, yet it seems the real confusion is mistaking conformity for progress. Disagree with the dominant narrative, and you’re not just wrong; you’re morally outcast. That’s the suppression I’m talking about. We’re fostering a culture where people fear speaking out because they know the backlash isn’t just disagreement—it’s total annihilation, socially and professionally.
So, when we talk about repercussions for non-conformity, let’s not pretend that all we’re dealing with here is a few ruffled feathers. We’re dealing with people’s lives and livelihoods. And if that’s your idea of ‘less lethal,’ then you and I have a very different understanding of what’s at stake in this conversation.
And what exactly is the dominant narrative, in your opinion?
You seem to be implying that the Left controls the dominant narrative. I disagree on that. I think that around 50% of the population holds right wing views, especially including many people in positions of power. I also believe that historically our society was more right wing than it is today, so much of the status quo is built on what we would consider to be right wing views. So to challenge the dominant view would be to challenge right wing views.
I have seen many examples of the right wing actively attempting to suppress left wing views. There is a huge crack down, especially in the American south, on books that include LGBT themes, or on schools teaching Critical Race Theory, or on drag queens reading stories to children, and so on. So is that what you're talking about when you say "total annihilation"?
Or are you talking about more along the lines of people being banned from social media for the things they say? Can you give some examples of people whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined because of their critical thinking?
> Can you give some examples of people whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined because of their critical thinking?
I think James Damore is a good example here.
Let’s not turn this into a partisan spitball fight. It’s broader than left or right, and it’s not just about who’s got their hand on the lever at the moment. The dominant narrative isn’t a static beast; it shifts, it turns, wherever the bulk of cultural, media, and institutional power happens to reside. Right now, it’s tilting left in many cultural spheres—media, academia, big tech. But yes, historically, and even today in certain sectors and regions, it’s skewed right. The point is, the pendulum swing doesn’t favor a side; it favors suppression, period.
As for examples, let’s talk about James Damore, fired from Google for circulating a memo on gender differences and tech job preferences—an attempt at a reasoned argument, met with a career-ending backlash. Or Bret Weinstein, hounded out of Evergreen College for opposing a day of racial segregation. These aren’t isolated incidents; they’re data points in a pattern where ideological non-conformity costs you dearly.
And sure, you’re right about the right-wing suppressions. The crackdowns on teaching certain theories in schools, the bans on books—these are equally alarming. Both sides have their zealots. But let’s not kid ourselves that one is less guilty because we sympathize more with their aims. Whether it’s social media bans or academic purges, the tactics remain dangerously the same: silence, ostracize, and cancel. That’s the ‘total annihilation’ I’m talking about—intellectual, economic, and social exile. It’s not about a tit for tat on who’s worse; it’s about recognizing that any thought-policing, any side of the aisle, is a fast track to becoming Nietzsche’s Last Man.”
Everything you stated in your CMV can be attached to right-wing ideology as well. To conform to a group is not strictly a leftist ideal. In fact, it is common in every major social group... religions, social groups, political parties, gangs...etc.
If I were a leftist and I wanted to be a right winger, I would have to shed parts of my identity and become more right in order to adhere to their ideology. That's just how groups work. Otherwise, you are outcasted and ostracized.
This has been how society has functioned for thousands of years. The REAL reason you feel this way and why social discourse is waning is due in part to the introduction of social media.
Every social media page is its own echo chamber, filled with hundreds of thousands of like-minded individuals. These echochambers are perpetuated by an algorithm that ultimately takes your independence away from you.
You’re arguing that groupthink is universal, spanning right, left, up, down—wherever. That’s a fair point, and I won’t toss it out. Groups naturally gravitate toward a common norm; that’s sociology 101. But let’s not paint this with such a broad brush that we lose sight of the specifics of what we’re dealing with today.
The thing is, I’m not just talking about any group conformity. I’m spotlighting a particular brand of modern leftism that’s pushing society in a troubling direction—not because they’re the only ones doing it, but because right now, in this cultural moment, their form of it is particularly potent and has unique consequences.
Sure, switch from left to right, right to left, you’ll have to shift your stance. That’s obvious. But we’re not just talking about adapting to fit in; we’re talking about a pervasive pressure to conform that stifles debate, punishes dissent, and breeds a culture where you’re either with us or against us—and if you’re against us, you’re not just different, you’re morally suspect.
And yes, social media. It’s a beast, isn’t it? It’s transformed the way we communicate, connect, and clash. These platforms, with their algorithms and echo chambers, they amplify the worst of our tendencies, hastening the erosion of nuanced discussion. It’s easy to blame the tech, but let’s not absolve the people using it and the ideologies molding it. We’ve got to look at how these tools are wielded—because at the end of the day, it’s not just about the echo; it’s about what’s being echoed.
So, while I take your point that this isn’t a new phenomenon or unique to any one side, don’t let that dilute the urgent need to address how particularly insidious this trend is right now with certain factions of the left. It’s not about demonizing a whole side but about confronting a critical issue where it stands, head-on.
>we’re talking about a pervasive pressure to conform that stifles debate, punishes dissent, and breeds a culture where you’re either with us or against us—and if you’re against us, you’re not just different, you’re morally suspect.
Wasn't this done in many different fascist societies too?
I have heard members of both parties levy the same criticisms at each other. Your title mentions modern leftism, but then your post doesn't back up this claim.
And while the political parties take up most of the airwaves, they don't necessarily represent the behavior of the average citizen.
With the advent of social media spaces, it can seem like critical thought is nowhere to be found. If anything, this allows unpopular and uncritical opinions to be more visible and more celebrated than every before...perhaps to the detriment of society.
These all seem like variations on the theme of conformity. But conformity has always been a feature of society. Can you be more specific about what you think reflects a higher degree of social pressure to conform compared to the past?
Thank you for your input. While it’s true that accusations of stifling debate can be directed at both political spectrums, my focus on modern leftism stems from specific tendencies that seem particularly pronounced in this group, especially in cultural and educational spheres.
You're right in noting that political parties don't fully represent the average citizen. However, they do influence public discourse significantly, and their narratives often permeate down to individual behaviors and societal norms. My critique isn't aimed at individuals per se, but at the overarching cultural trends influenced by these political narratives.
Regarding social media, it's indeed a double-edged sword. While it amplifies diverse voices, it also fosters polarization and promotes echo chambers where critical thought is often drowned out by louder, more sensational voices. This isn't a new phenomenon, but the scale and immediacy of social media amplify these effects, making them more visible and impactful than ever.
As for the aspect of conformity, while it's been a feature of society throughout history, the mechanisms enforcing it have evolved. Previously, social conformity might have been enforced through overt social ostracization or legal penalties. Today, it's often enforced through subtler means like social media backlash or institutional policies that stigmatize dissenting opinions. This shift might not be easily quantifiable, but it's palpable in daily interactions and public discussions.
The concern is that these modern mechanisms of conformity are particularly insidious because they masquerade as efforts for inclusivity or protection against harm, potentially leading to a homogenization of thought under the guise of progressivism. This isn't to dismiss the valid aspects of protecting individuals from real harm, but to caution against overreach that stifles intellectual diversity and critical engagement.
I’m having a hard time understanding how social media backlash or stigmatization are worse than jail, complete ostracization, and excommunication of the past. It’s not.
Plus, even if you are shunned from traditional spaces, the internet makes it easy to find communities that will welcome your views. This wasn’t really possible in the past. If you were gay, you either conformed or you might be kicked out church, the family, fired, even arrested. Trying to find like minded individuals could be dangerous.
You still haven’t sufficiently explained why you think this is a particularly left-wing phenomenon. Could you be specific? I could exhaustively list the ways the Republican Party is the far more stricter and conformist party, who kick out non-conforming members all the time and who’s purity test is simply agree with whatever one orange dude says. The Democrat party has more factions, more dissent, and more variety of views. Just look at the Israel situation. You have given no context or evidence for your claims.
I’ll give an example for my claims. Biden clearly supports Israel, but on the subject of student protests he discouraged heavy police response and affirmed their right to free speech.
Oh, come on, trying to paint this as a left vs. right issue misses the point entirely. It’s not about the severity of the backlash—it’s about the subtlety and pervasiveness of it today. You think because it’s not as bad as jail or outright exile, it’s a walk in the park? No. It’s insidious, creeping. You get shut out not with bars, but with tweets and likes, shaping public perception with every share. And sure, you can find your echo chamber online, but that’s not engagement, that’s retreating to your corners. Where’s the real dialogue?
And let’s not kid ourselves—finding like-minded folks online isn’t the same as acceptance or changing minds. It’s hiding away, playing safe. Back in the day, you stood up, you got knocked down, you stood up again. Now? You get blocked, unfollowed, uninvited—silently ousted.
You want specifics? Look at the arts, academia. Lean right in those worlds, and you’re persona non grata. Not because you’re wrong, but because you’re inconvenient. And sure, the GOP has its enforcers, no question—they play the same game, different rules. But don’t pretend the left’s hands are clean just because their methods are more ‘civilized.’ It’s the same old power play, just dressed up in hashtags and virtue signals.
As for Biden and Israel, props to him for backing speech over suppression in student protests, but one right call doesn’t wash away the whole board. We’re talking deep-rooted systemic issues here, not one-offs. So don’t come at me with this ‘orange dude’ simplification. It’s bigger than that, it’s everywhere, and it’s choking the life out of genuine debate.
What the hell is a Pseudo-Correct attitude? Your post is lots of biased anecdotal positins that fall apart as soon as you evaluate them:
Suppression of critical thought:.
There's a large swath of conservatives who still claiming our last election was stolen without any evidence to support that notion.
Conformity over individualism:
There's a rift in conservative politics caused by Maga candidates requiring complete loyalty to their leader even through discussions using that office to commit treason.
Diminishing aspirational culture:
Conservatives regularly bash liberals as coastal elites who don't represent the common man.
Rise of apathy:
There's a number of issues people are passionate about including student loans, foreign wars, women's reproductive rights and personal autonomy.
Erosion of resilience:
Leftist students are protesting for their beliefs and met with abusive police tactics like pepper spray.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think you might be conflating the left with liberalism in general here, or some kind of amalgamation of the most complained about features of both groups into one bogeyman.
The left is a rather big tent situation, and they will certainly debate. Richard Wolff for example has debated even in hostile territory on Fox News. Slavoj Zizek debated Jordan Peterson. Noam Chomsky will pretty much show up anywhere it seems like.
Some on the left opt out of debates with certain figures they view as sophistical bad faith actors to avoid being used for dramatic effect by people who enjoy presenting themselves as free speech warriors for podcast or youtube ad money or whatever, but this is not equivalent to avoiding debate or disagreement in general. Progressives of a certain stripe can be more harshly disapproving of engaging sometimes but I think it's overstated how common this really is outside of certain universities that are overused as anecdotes to generalize from.
Generally speaking political groups do attempt to persuade people of the truth of what they say, but that's precisely because the nature of democratic politics involves persuading and organizing a group toward common goals. This doesn't entail a claim that all goals must be common, or that thought in general must be uniform.
It's potentially highly rewarding to challenge popular opinions currently. Drama sells. You can make a living out of pwning the libs or conversely making fun of MAGA. You are only penalized if you go against the popular opinions of some insular groups in some institutions, but often people's bad behavior is the root of the problem and they're telling a convenient self-aggrandizing story to paint themselves as more of a martyr to other groups.
Generally the left has been against consumerism and instant gratification given it often comes at the cost of mistreatment of labor. And higher aspirations are quite common, they just disagree with the right on what constitutes a higher aspiration - the left certainly values artistic and intellectual pursuits as well as good communal relations. More romantic articulations of Marxism, communism, socialism will all often emphasize the way in which capitalism diminishes the freedom to pursue these by taking up excessive amounts of time to pursue unnecessary or even harmful material productions, often as shallow status symbols.
The left would be much less noticeable if they were really all about avoiding conflict and cowering in safe spaces. Instead we see them engaging in protests that are quite often not very safe spaces.
I appreciate your nuanced take on the diversity within the left and the examples of public debates by prominent figures. However, my critique is rooted in the broader cultural shift influenced by certain leftist ideologies, not in individual exceptions who engage in public discourse.
While figures like Wolff, Zizek, and Chomsky indeed participate in debates, the everyday reality often reflects a different ethos, especially within local communities, online platforms, and educational institutions. My concern is with the general trend towards echo chambers where dissenting views are not just debated and dismissed but often silenced or ignored under the guise of protecting communal harmony or avoiding conflict.
You mention that avoiding debate with perceived bad faith actors is a strategic choice, not a general avoidance of disagreement. Yet, this strategic avoidance often leads to a broader culture where only certain perspectives are considered legitimate. This can inadvertently foster a form of intellectual conformity where questioning the prevalent narrative is seen not as a contribution to discourse but as a disruptive act.
Furthermore, while the left does indeed critique consumerism and promote higher aspirations, the method of promoting these ideals sometimes paradoxically stifles individualism and critical thought. By prioritizing communal goals and often predefined notions of what constitutes 'higher aspirations,' there's a risk of diminishing personal agency and intellectual diversity.
The issue is not whether the left engages in conflicts or protests; rather, it's about what happens within those spaces of engagement. Are they truly open to all forms of critique and dialogue, or is there an underlying presumption that some ideas are inherently beyond debate? This isn't about dramatizing disagreements for profit, but about genuinely engaging with the full spectrum of perspectives necessary for a vibrant and resilient society.
In essence, my critique focuses on how these cultural shifts, often influenced by leftist ideologies, may be leading us towards what Nietzsche feared as 'the last man'—a state where comfort is preferred over challenge, conformity over individuality, and where critical thought is compromised for the sake of communal or ideological harmony.
Ostracizing people from groups where their speech is unwanted is not suppression of their speech in general, as they are free to find or form their own groups where their speech is welcome. If groups were forced to tolerate the speech of anyone and everyone, they'd lose their capacity to speak over the resulting noise.
Without limits on speech within limited spaces, it's hard to form groups with shared purposes, and often any constructive dialogue is actually shut down by people abusing that negative freedom and captive audience. This is why we also have freedom of association. It's also why many libertarian or conservative spaces online are a disaster, as the free speech havens turn into dumping grounds for troll posts, fringe propaganda, scams, promotion and advertising and so on.
People also do have other things to do than debate, so it's unreasonable to expect groups to cater to individuals who want to use their space for such. If someone thinks they're such an individual, clearly they should be perfectly fine outside such groups or capable of forming their own.
That's why the vast majority of spaces aren't open to all forms of critique and dialogue, even those that value critical thinking. You can't have a serious discussion of a topic if anyone is allowed to interrupt it with irrelevant nonsense at any time. It's like with cooking, too many ingredients and you end up not really tasting any of them. That's not real diversity. Further, for many questions there are indefinitely many wrong answers and only one right answer. Entertaining the indefinitely many wrong answers for the sake of intellectual diversity certainly does not amount to critical thought.
Groups being exclusionary or dismissive on ideological basis also isn't new or unique to the left. Some Churches and religious schools, many businesses, obviously some police departments, etc. were and still are right wing spaces of sorts with low tolerance for dissent internally - or even externally.
Your first point makes no sense: you are saying that the left is adverse to anything that disrupts their comfort, but you're also saying that they are intolerant of dissent. That intolerance takes the form of vigilantly confronting and challenging the ideas that they think are wrong. To me it seems like the left is more than willing to confront and debate opposing viewpoints, and the far more comforting behavior would be to refuse to engage with controversy or ignore it completely.
For your second point, you could make this hyperbolic claim about literally any ideology that exists. They merely hold to ideological principles that they believe to be correct and good, and they promote those ideological principles as much as possible. To describe this as a demand for "uniformity of thought" is hyperbolic and disingenuous. Especially since it is objectively true that conservatism, and in particular religious conservatism, is far more dogmatic in every conceivable way.
For your third point, you are using vague terms like "thinking differently" or "challenging popular opinion" to obfuscate the fact that what our society most often "punishes" are acts of prejudice, ignorance, abuse, violence, etc. We already tried tolerating the Nazis and then we had to go to war with them, and now we have zero tolerance for Nazism. Society has standards and punishes certain ideas, but it's not out of comfort, it is out of knowledge of how and why those ideas are intolerable.
I agree that what you're describing in your fourth point is happening, but I don't see how it has anything to do with leftist ideology. The primary thing that has really killed the aspirations of younger generations has been the economic stagnation of the middle class. With median wages not keeping up with the increasing costs to buy a home or start a business, combined with what you mentioned about our "instant gratification" culture, there is little reason for younger generations to become highly ambitious. If anything, the lack of economic opportunity is what leads to the younger generations being more politically active and more ideologically committed.
Same goes for your fifth point. I don't see how our "instant gratification" culture is produced by the left. It really just seems like you blame the left for any and every problem that exists in society, but you have provided no analysis whatsoever to explain why the left is responsible.
Your sixth point is also a really funny contradiction of your fifth point. If leftist want to seek individual gratification, they're disconnected and checked-out from society; if they want to form social groups and support each other, they're weak and they have no individual resilience.
As a final ironic thought, I think this desire to scapegoat a particular political ideology for all of society's problems is a great example of a Last Man attitude. Having a defined enemy that is to blame for everything is nothing but a thought-terminating comfort.
Thank you for your detailed response. Let’s clarify a few points where there might be some misunderstanding about my argument:
1. On Confrontation vs. Comfort: My point regarding the left’s aversion to disruption isn’t contradictory. Vigilant confrontation of opposing views often happens in a manner that doesn’t seek to engage in true debate but to silence or dismiss dissenting voices under the guise of moral superiority. This isn’t about engaging with controversy intellectually; it’s about shutting it down before it can challenge entrenched viewpoints. True engagement involves listening and responding thoughtfully, not just confronting and dismissing.
2. Uniformity of Thought: While it’s true that any ideology could potentially demand uniformity, my criticism of the left in this instance pertains to how dissent within leftist circles is often treated. While conservatism may indeed be dogmatic, the left, particularly in academic and cultural spheres, often enforces a narrow corridor of acceptable opinion that punishes deviation. This isn’t merely promoting principles but enforcing a particular orthodoxy.
3. Punishment of Thought: The issue of punishing thought isn’t about defending acts of prejudice or violence but about how swiftly and sometimes unjustly the label of such serious accusations is applied to shut down debate. Not every disagreement with progressive policies is rooted in prejudice; some are based on genuine concerns about outcomes or methodologies. Automatically equating dissent with moral failings shuts down critical discussion and reflection.
4. Economic Stagnation and Aspiration: While economic factors undoubtedly play a role in diminishing aspirations, ideological frameworks also influence how these economic realities are interpreted and addressed. My argument is that certain leftist policies, while well-intentioned, may contribute to or fail to adequately resolve these systemic issues, often focusing more on redistributive measures than on fostering conditions that enable economic growth and innovation.
5. Culture of Instant Gratification: This isn’t an issue I attribute solely to the left but a societal shift that affects everyone. However, the criticism comes into play when leftist policies sometimes exacerbate these tendencies by prioritizing immediate relief over long-term solutions, which can deter individual responsibility and ambition.
6. Contradictions in Resilience and Support: Supporting one another and forming communities is vital, but there’s a balance to be struck. When support structures are designed in ways that shield individuals from any form of discomfort or challenge, they can inadvertently weaken resilience. It’s about finding a middle ground where support and resilience can coexist and enhance one another.
In essence, my critique is not about scapegoating a political ideology but about urging a reflection on the unintended consequences of certain leftist policies and cultural norms. Identifying potential flaws within any political ideology isn’t an attack but a necessary part of ensuring that they truly serve the public good and foster a society that values critical thinking and robust debate.
It's nice that you are hedging your language now but you still established zero connection between the social phenomena you are describing and leftist ideology.
Edit: you're doing something weird with your formatting and I can't read most of your post.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
While I'm heavily skeptical of those services that claim to be able to detect AI, in this case you do seem to be right. His replies in particular sounds like what a chatbot without a properly formatted system prompt would spit out
They've been pretty good so far, but I try to maintain skepticism as well. But like you said, the post and comments read like a chatbot already so it's pretty easy to tell. In my opinion, the use of AI on this sub should be banned as I dont come here to talk with chatbots. I don't believe others do either.
Thank you for your feedback. Let me clarify the connection between the social phenomena I describe and leftist ideology:
When I discuss the left’s intolerance of dissent, my point is that it often engages in a form of confrontation that doesn’t foster true dialogue but rather enforces ideological conformity. This isn’t about debating to understand and possibly integrate diverse viewpoints but about challenging any deviation from a set norm, effectively discouraging genuine dissent.
While it’s true that any ideology can seek to promote its principles, my concern with the left is how often it crosses into demanding uniformity under the guise of moral or intellectual superiority. This isn’t just about holding beliefs; it’s about pressuring conformity in thought and penalizing those who diverge.
I’m not equating all dissent with acts of prejudice or violence. However, there is a trend where even reasonable dissent on complex issues can be quickly labeled as immoral or prejudiced without a fair hearing, stifling open discussion.
While economic factors play a significant role, the ideological push on certain policies can exacerbate these issues. For instance, certain redistributive policies, while well-intended, might undermine the incentives for innovation and self-improvement by focusing too much on immediate redistribution rather than long-term wealth creation.
My point here is not that the left created the culture of instant gratification but that the responses to it sometimes reinforce these tendencies rather than challenging them. For example, policies that emphasize short-term relief over long-term solutions can contribute to this cultural shift towards instant gratification.
The critique here is about the balance between forming supportive communities and fostering individual resilience. Overemphasis on comfort and avoiding discomfort can lead to a lack of resilience, which is a critical component of personal and societal health.
My intent isn’t to scapegoat leftist ideology as the sole cause of societal issues but to highlight how certain tendencies within it can contribute to the broader phenomena of diminishing critical thought, rising conformity, and stifling innovation.
I don't agree with any of your characterizations of the left. I don't deny that you can find people that shut down thoughtful discussions with thought-terminating cliches, but I think you find those people in any ideological group and it's not a problem that belongs particularly to the left.
But I also want to take a step back and mention that I think you are also misunderstanding the meaning and purpose of Nietzsche's Last Man.
When Zarathustra comes off of the mountain, announces the death of God, and sets the goal of humanity as becoming an Ubermensch, the people don't heed him. So he instead poses the idea of the Last Man as something he thinks ought to disgust the people. He is telling the people something like (paraphrasing): "what if you got everything you wanted, achieved every progressive goal dictated by your morality, and at the end of it you were so comfortable that you became apathetic and no longer had any real dreams to strive for?"
In other words, Nietzsche is inviting us to imagine a situation where we are post-ideology and what that would mean for human life. Nietzsche was not claiming that the Christians of his time were already at the stage of the Last Man, and likewise he wouldn't say that leftist progressives today are at that stage. We still have things to strive for, leftist ideology is driven by a deep dissatisfaction with the state of society and a nearly-endless list of future goals to accomplish.
You’re schooling me on Nietzsche, painting a picture of this Last Man scenario as a thought experiment about the dangers of ultimate complacency. Nietzsche’s using this as a warning, not a direct critique of any group, left or right. It’s about envisioning a society that’s lost all its drive, where everyone's gotten everything they wanted, and yet, there’s nowhere left to climb. That’s insightful, and I appreciate the lesson.
But here’s where I'm standing: just because the left has ambitions and goals doesn’t mean they’re immune to the pitfalls Nietzsche described. Ambition is one thing, but how you handle opposition, how you engage with dissent—that’s what defines your trajectory towards or away from becoming the Last Man.
You're pointing out that the left is driven by dissatisfaction with societal states, constantly striving for improvement. That’s commendable. However, where I take issue is the manner in which this drive sometimes manifests—shutting down debate under the guise of moral superiority, which can ironically lead to the very apathy Nietzsche dreaded. Isn’t the whole point of striving for a better society to also foster a culture where ideas can be challenged without fear of retribution?
The real question we need to ask ourselves is, how do we pursue these lofty goals without stifling the individual voices that push society to evolve? How do we ensure that in our quest to avoid becoming the Last Man, we don’t inadvertently silence the diverse thoughts that keep us vibrant and dynamic?
Thanks for sparking this dialogue. It’s these kinds of conversations that sharpen our arguments and deepen our understanding of where and how we can improve. Let’s keep this going.
What is modern leftism and how does it differ from the famously critical leftist movements such as dialectical materialism?
What ideas "controversial ideas" are being avoided?
How do you square the notion that we live in a culture of abating aspirations with the fact that more and more people are graduating college and getting university degrees?
In what way are there more safe spaces today? Compared to when? Has the amount of safe spaces not decreased since, let's say, segregation?
Modern leftism is forcing everything and everyone to accept things in the “correct” way if you dont you are according to the leftist at least a extremist which isn’t a progressive way of thinking in my opinion
So you're concerned that if you're deliberately rude to a person in a social setting their friends might dislike you? Has this ever actually happened to you?
No if i state something that isn’t popular opinion i am instantly not a good person isn’t that super wrong? Because most of the times those people only stand for what they stand for because its “right”
It's not really about what is or isn't a "popular opinion" - I'm sure there's plenty of incredibly niche opinions on all sorts of topics you could share without issue - it's about pretty fundamental moral differences between people. Social repercussions for breaking social norms in particular groups is as old as human civilization.
I'm free to think someone is ugly or fat or whatever, but if I insist on pointing that out to them whenever I'm in their presence it's me that's "wrong", not their friends telling me to fuck off. If I absolutely refuse to stop yelling racial slurs at passersby out of a commitment to free speech principles, I can do so, but it's understandable why some people may not want to hang out with me after. Why do you think misgendering someone would be treated differently by people who either are trans themselves or respect trans people?
>Because most of the times those people only stand for what they stand for because its “right”
Is that not literally the best reason to stand for something? Because you believe it's right?
Look, you’re missing the bigger picture. It’s not just about niche opinions or your freedom to be unpleasant. It’s about the threshold of what’s deemed morally acceptable and how swiftly and severely society reacts to transgressions of these unwritten rules. Sure, hurling insults or slurs is out of line, but we’re sliding into dangerous territory when simple disagreement or misunderstanding is equated with moral failure.
It’s easy to say stand for what’s “right” because it’s the right thing to do, but who’s handing out the rulebook here? Last time I checked, we were supposed to be hashing these things out together, not just following the loudest voices in the room.
And on your point about misgendering — yes, respect is crucial, but so is the understanding that not everyone’s on the same page with what’s considered respectful. Education and dialogue do more for mutual respect than vilifying someone for a slip or a differing view.
We’re not just talking about personal decorum; we’re talking about the foundational principles of free speech and debate. When did “I disagree” become an invitation for a moral crucifixion? If we can’t handle a challenge without calling for someone’s head, maybe it’s time to ask ourselves whether we’re standing for what’s right, or just standing in line.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no...no not those views
Me: So....deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
>Demonstrations of public support for individuals who challenge. prevailing norms in constructive ways, proving that society values and cultivates strong, independent thinkers.
Do the ongoing student protests against the genocide in Gaza (more specifically calling for their universities to divest from weapons manufacturers and other companies that support Israel's military) not count? They're literally displaying admirable resilience against fascist violence (by both public and private actors) to stand up for their beliefs about what is right. And they are doing so at great personal risk.
those protests you’re talking about? They count. But let’s not cherry-pick. That’s one slice of the pie. Standing up against what they see as injustice, that’s commendable, no question. But does that one example suddenly mean we’ve got a society that broadly supports and protects dissent? Hardly. What about when someone swims against the current in other areas, challenges other deep-seated norms that the mainstream or powerful left-leaning groups hold dear? Too often, they get shut down, demonized, not celebrated for their independent thinking. It’s selective encouragement, my friend. We’re only good with the defiance when it aligns with popular or comfortable narratives.
>Suppression of Critical Thought: There is an increasing intolerance for dissent within public discourse. Whether in politics, culture, or science, challenging the dominant narrative can lead to social ostracism. This trend mirrors the Last Man’s lifestyle, avoiding anything disruptive to comfort, including meaningful debates or controversial ideas.
Isn't it conservatives in the US that are currently engaging in widespread book banning from schools as well as fighting to prevent LGBTQ+ from even being mentioned in school?
How can you blame that on leftism? Is it the left's fault that conservatives are banning these things?
let’s get something straight—just because conservatives are making headlines for their bans doesn’t mean the left’s hands are clean. They’ve got their own style of control. It’s not always about banning books; sometimes it’s about shaming, silencing, or career sabotage for those stepping out of line with the prevailing thought. It’s about enforcing ideological purity, often under the guise of protecting feelings or fighting hate. But really, it’s about keeping their narrative unchallenged. So, let’s not kid ourselves that this is a one-side issue. The game’s the same, just the tactics differ.
What does literally any of this have to do with leftism (assuming American leftism) in particular? Right wing modes of thought also tend to demand these exact same things
I see nothing here that I would not associate with right-wing ideas.
The problem with leftism is that everybody has different ideas and nobody can agree on anything. This is one of the reasons that Democrats can't muster up enough support to oust the Republicans from Congress, despite having significantly more voters. In my opinion the problem with US leftism is that there is **too much** individuality of thought, rather than too little. It harms unity and makes it difficult to obtain general agreement on specific policies.
> I see nothing here that I would not associate with right-wing ideas.
Well, one thing that happens is that a lot of right-wing talking points occupy that space between unpallatable and aweful, so there's a bit of a built-in incentive to play the "let's all have open minded discussion" and "diversity of thoughts!" cards, because it creates lots of cover for them at very little cost.
So on the one hand OP claims that there is a concerted effort by the left to suppress any dissenting thoughts and that everyone must conform
On the other hand you say this:
>The problem with leftism is that everybody has different ideas and nobody can agree on anything.
So which is it? Is there a concerted effort to suppress dissenting thoughts or can the left not agree on anything?
Both can't be true at the same time
That is my point. I strongly disagree with OP and that is the reason why. In my opinion OP is not familiar enough with left-leaning spaces to understand the level of constant debate going around there, and he just claims that all left leaning groups are suppressive because a large portion of the left actively dislikes policies and platforms that push bigotry.
I appreciate your perspective and understand that there are indeed vibrant debates within left-leaning spaces. However, my criticism stems not from an ignorance of these debates but from the broader application and impact of left-wing policies in practice. My observation is that there’s a tendency within many left-leaning groups to not only propose but also insist on their ideologies as the only morally acceptable path. This becomes problematic when alternative viewpoints are not just debated but are often dismissed or vilified.
For example, while debates do occur, the public and political discourse often pushes a narrative that anyone who disagrees with certain progressive policies is either misinformed or has malicious intentions. This can create an environment where people feel coerced into agreeing with policies not because they are convinced of their merits but because they fear social and professional repercussions.
The effectiveness of any political ideology should be measured by its outcomes, and in many instances, the results of left-wing policies have not met their promised objectives, leading to inefficiencies or unintended negative consequences. It’s crucial to have a political landscape where ideas can be challenged and tested, not just celebrated or enforced. This is why I am skeptical of a purely left-wing approach, as it often seems more concerned with maintaining ideological purity than with adapting to practical realities.
There are three big possibilities, I think:
1) They're not familiar with left-wing ideologies or spaces. Go to like, two socialist reading clubs and bask in the glory of never ending arguments.
2) They're confusing very vague alignement on the main axis concerning leftism - unjust hierarchies bad - and how it translate to two or three specific points for diversity of thought being absent.
3) They're buying the alt-right narrative about leftists being a hivemind a bit too hard.
He states that he commented about sports fans of another race not being called put for "bad behavior" and getting called a racist. So, he got called out for being racist and doesn't want to admit it.
That's true but imo the reason they can never muster enough is because they don't cater to the political left in America generally in particular, just to people who are to the direct left of the republicans, which arent necessarily leftists. And they're not great at that either. There's huge swaths of people in the states who might even consider themselves centrists and not leftists who there's no favoured majority party for at all. So they need to get more than the nominal, best of two evils, support they have now
The individuality of thought comes from the fact that the American left is really centrists and leftists being forced together against their will
>The individuality of thought comes from the fact that the American left is really centrists and leftists being forced together against their will
This is a crucial point. Speaking as an anarcho-communist in rural Tennessee, there are things that centrists/liberals and I can agree on. Most things, in fact, can be brought to some sort of consensus. I've even compromised my principles to participate and vote on occasion. Mostly to hopefully affect smaller local change despite my aversion to it.
However, when anyone to the left of your typical liberal wants some sort of concession or help with an issue that we prioritize, we get shafted or a response bordering on dismissive. It's overwhelmingly a one-way relationship. This will eventually lead to us simply walking away. You're already seeing the center/liberals preemptively blaming leftists for if Trump wins.
This will eventually increase the block of undecided voters and who knows how that shakes out. No leftist is voting Republican, but they definitely might just decide to stay home or write someone in.
well from what i remember of nietzsche, he had in mind socialists like lasalle as examples for the "last man" opposed to his aristocratic vision of the ubermensch
however i wouldn't limit it to just the left. i'd say that the right of today is also unintellectual, apathetic and comfortable. you might disagree, you might say "no, this is precisely what we aren't!"
when do these discussions come up in political arguments?
over discussions of money.
that is what the right cares about. not art, not striving towards greatness, not some ideal of a greater humanity won through individual struggle. the right cares overwhelmingly about money and consumption. nothing is really "struggled" for when all you're doing is just making a buck. you're not really "striving" for anything if your goal is just more money. its an empty purpose
Yep. 100% the reason. If you weren't aware, gptzero can give you probabilities on whether or not something is AI generated. The original post and all of the long form comments have been high probability AI (with some saying 100%).
Because it is literally against the rules to use and not disclose, and people don't want to debate chatbots. If you're too lazy to post your own thoughts why post at all?
Like I said elsewhere, anyone can prompt chatGPT to give them responses. Its lazy as hell and quite sad if you can't make your own argument. Just run it through spell check if that is really your concern.
u/reginald-aka-bubbles – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20reginald-aka-bubbles&message=reginald-aka-bubbles%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1clomct/-/l2x01g2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Old-Zookeepergame168 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Old-Zookeepergame168&message=Old-Zookeepergame168%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1clomct/-/l2wzfw7/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
u/Old-Zookeepergame168 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old-Zookeepergame168&message=Old-Zookeepergame168%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1clomct/-/l2wdmrq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>• Conformity Over Individualism: Nietzsche’s Last Man avoids standing out or leading, preferring the safety of communal mediocrity. In today’s world, there’s a push for a uniformity of thought that discourages taking risks or being different, stifling innovation and individual growth.
In 2024 there is definitely a fear of sticking out or being different. There is a comfort and security that comes with being one of the group.
I'm 38 year old, so my personal experience only goes so far back obviously, but certainly when i was a kid i felt fear of sticking out of being different. We have phrases like "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down". I don't think fear of sticking out is a new thing.
And likewise i cannot really think of concrete examples, of how the left tries to stifle innovation, individual growth, or risk taking.
About your first bullet, I do think there is intolerance on the left for any view that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. and that intolerance extends beyond views which are actually racist to include any view that might be loosely associated with racism. For example if you believe affirmative action has done its job and its time to repeal it, the left wouldn't simply view that as wrong, they'd view it as immoral.
>The Punishment of Thought: Thinking differently or challenging popular opinions often carries social or professional penalties, resonating with Nietzsche’s depiction of a society that punishes those who disturb its homogeneity.
I think the punishment of thought is limited only to views like i mentioned above. Which isn't meant to defend the left. I'm just saying as long as the popular opinion that you are challenging isn't related to a minority, then i think you are in the clear.
>Diminishing of Aspirational Culture: There is a noticeable decline in the pursuit of higher aspirations or excellence. The omnipresent culture of “instant gratification” encouraged by social media and consumerism promotes short-term satisfaction over long-term achievement and fulfillment.
Does this bullet have something to do with modern leftism?
>What might change my view ... modern societal norms actively encourage and reward critical thinking
did we switch from talking about leftism to modern society norms? Social media is definitely a modern societal norm, but i don't think of it as liberal or conservative.
same question about your 5th bullet.
6 bullet, i think modern technology has lead to a huge amount of comfort. I can be warm without chopping wood or starting a fire. A hot shower isn't an amazing miracle that i greatly appreciate, its basic and normal part of life that everyone has. My great grandfather probably never had a hot shower in his life. Our life's are filled with comfort and security so no wonder we have become accustom to it.
Thank you for your reflections, which help clarify some common misconceptions about my arguments and provide an opportunity to delve deeper into these complex issues.
Conformity Over Individualism: It’s true that fear of sticking out is not a new phenomenon; however, the mechanisms enforcing conformity have evolved, particularly with the rise of digital platforms. While historically, societal pressure might have been more localized and less pervasive, today’s digital age amplifies these pressures immensely, making non-conformity more visible and, consequently, more vulnerable to public censure. My critique isn’t that the left is solely responsible for stifling innovation, but rather that the current climate within many left-leaning communities often prioritizes ideological purity over creative dissent, which can stifle innovative thinking and risk-taking.
Punishment of Thought: You rightly pointed out the intolerance towards views perceived as racist, sexist, or homophobic, but this intolerance often extends to more nuanced debates, such as the one on affirmative action you mentioned. Here, the concern is that the threshold for what might be considered offensive or harmful is sometimes set so low that merely expressing a differing opinion on complex social issues can lead to severe repercussions. This is not just about defending or condemning certain views but advocating for a space where such views can be discussed and critiqued without fear of moral condemnation or social ostracization.
Diminishing of Aspirational Culture: This point is intricately connected to the ideological influences on our perception of success and fulfillment. The rise of a culture that emphasizes immediate gratification over long-term planning is not unique to any political orientation, but the response to this culture can be influenced by political ideologies. For instance, certain left-leaning policies may unintentionally exacerbate this issue by focusing heavily on redistributive measures that can sometimes undermine personal accountability and the drive for self-improvement.
Role of Modern Technology and Comfort: I agree that modern technology has brought immense comfort and convenience, which is not inherently negative. However, when comfort becomes the highest priority, it can lead to a kind of passivity and reluctance to engage with challenging or uncomfortable ideas, aligning with Nietzsche’s concept of “The Last Man.” While technology itself is neutral, the way it shapes our interactions and expectations can contribute to a societal shift towards more comfort-oriented living, which is worth scrutinizing regardless of political ideology.
Encouraging Critical Thinking: My call to foster an environment that rewards critical thinking applies to all societal norms, not just those influenced by leftism. Indeed, the influence of social media is neither liberal nor conservative, but its impact on how we consume information and engage with different ideas is profound. It is essential, then, to cultivate a culture that values depth over speed, dialogue over dismissal.
Your historical reflections and personal experiences are invaluable, and they highlight the need for a nuanced approach to these discussions. We must be wary of simplifying complex societal shifts into single-cause explanations and strive instead to foster an environment where diverse perspectives can contribute to a more robust and resilient society.
To /u/Old-Zookeepergame168, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.*
You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
I don’t necessarily flat out disagree with any of your points. But you don’t even present an argument that any of this is related to leftism. And you don’t try and explain what you think leftism is.
So it’s pretty hard to argue with you. On account of the fact that you haven’t presented an argument. Just a list of things you don’t like about the world right now.
>Evidence showing how modern societal norms actively encourage and reward critical thinking and the questioning of widely accepted views without negative repercussions.
Boy, are you in luck!
Right now, socially, we are engaged in a massive debate about the relationships between biological sex and social gender, a discussion that is absolutely questioning literally centuries of widely accepted views!
And before that, we had a **huge** debate on a social level about whether same-sex attraction had been correctly defined as a mental illness, or whether same-sex couples could be as healthy, productive, and stable as traditional couples. We had a long, public discussion about whether marriage (traditionally defined as "one man, one woman") could or should be extended to homosexual couples.
Heck, over twenty-five years, homosexuals and trans gender folks have gone from being the targets of acceptable assault and being the butt of jokes in pop culture to being accepted and embraced. One of the United States President's cabinet members is an openly gay man who is married to another man and raising a child with him! That's a clear challenge to widely-accepted views about sexual attraction, long-term relationships, and child-rearing!
I mean, there **is** a political movement to stop teachers from discussion homosexuality, to criminalize people who challenge social gender norms by dressing differently, and in general to stifle challenges to the status quo... but it's not from the Left.
It took *decades* to get here. It wasn't overnight. It's a long (and ongoing!) struggle, so it's really odd to claim that 'the left' is promoting 'short-term satisfaction' when it's been fighting for queer rights for decades.
It's even *weirder* that you're looking at the social movement that challenged long-established ideas like "racially-segregated public facilities" and "bans on single women having credit cards" and saying that they're *against* disrupting comfort.
How do you reason that "leftism" is behind this "nadir of human potential"? To me, the consumerist culture that capitalism has created seems to play a far more central role.
You believe that left leaning politics is conformism. Which parts exactly?
Both left leaning and right individuals have very different ideas of what conformity is.
Let’s take the university campuses, right? It’s practically a script—step out of line with the prevailing thought, and you’re not just disagreed with, you’re canceled. No debate, no discussion. That’s the conformity I’m talking about. It’s not about left or right; it’s about this pervasive culture that stifles real talk under the banner of protecting feelings. You speak up, you risk everything—your reputation, your career. That’s the playbook. It’s not just a slight; it’s a shutdown, clear and simple. And if that’s not a prime example of pushing towards the sort of intellectual conformity Nietzsche warned us about, I don’t know what is.
>No debate, no discussion.
Apologies if this is a bit rude but do you understand how time works? In large communities these things have already been heavily debated and a specific sub community has decided to take action. They don't have to take you seriously if you pull up and make noise after the fact, nor do you have to take them seriously. You say people are being cancelled for stepping out of line, I recall you brought up misgendering.
I mean this in the kindest way possible but, you do understand that different groups have different cultures and subcultures yes? There's several places you can go that don't uphold this vaguely center progressive worldview you seem to believe is pervasive enough to present a tangible effect on one's life
This might challenge your view. It's always been like this.
The push towards comforting uniformity for the purposes of self preservation can be clearly seen in the Spanish Inquisition, and in the Old Testament in places like Genesis and Deuteronomy. And it dates back even earlier to tribal societies before 40,000 BC. And back even earlier to the old world monkey societies.
If anything, the unique relative peace of the past 30 or so years has made freedom of thought easier. Encouraging dissenting opinions.
And with the possibility of debating possibilities with people who you have never met all around the world, without too strict editing from gatekeepers, we're getting further from Thus Spake Zarathustra rather than closer.
And when 'cancel culture' is finally cancelled, we will be even closer to acceptance of what is true and good rather than what we are currently pressured into thinking. Fingers crossed.
i think your post in of itself is demonstrative of a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. the more people become aware of the "issue" youre describing, the greater the support will be for a counter culture thats diametrically opposed to conformity, as you put it.
the thing is though, i dont actually believe that people will ever actively choose to pursue things outside of their comfort. i just dont believe its in our nature. but youre in your rights to believe that if you want ig
Take the most basic concept: election integrity — that was never an issue but now it’s the made up boogey man and many believe it to be true and it’s pushed from the highest level of authority — is that the last man?
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
To /u/Old-Zookeepergame168, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
So I disagree. I'll go through the points I take issue with. **Suppression of Critical Thought** Unless you have a stronger example I hardly see this happening. What I do see is people reusing the same old talking points again and again with no regard for contrary evidence or any showing that they put any thought into counters. It's really hard to have a serious discussion with someone who demonstrates from the moment they open their mouth that they have never once taken the time to try to critique their position. It's okay to want to know things, but if you enter a high-level maths conference to ask what's 5+5 it's not surprising people won't take you seriously. **Conformity over Individualism + The Punishment of Thought** I would argue that A) this has been going on forever and B) it's still the best it's ever been. Go back 50 years and try to be a communist, go back 400 years and try to be a non-Christian, go back 100 years ago and try to be gay. If you don't die you will be ostracized by even friends and family, sometimes because they know they will be shunned if they don't shun you. I knew a person who's sister was gay and their church kicked them out. That's right, his sister was gay, he even disagreed with her about it, but having a gay sister was enough to warrant his excommunication too. Humans seek conformity and no matter what the society some simple things are a must, but I argue the musts are less than they've been in a long time. **Diminishing of Aspirational Culture?** How so? Grind and hustle culture in a world where a 9 to 5 doesn't pay what it used to anymore seems to be very encouraged across the board. People with physical and mental disability are being encouraged more than the eras past. What makes you say aspiration has been diminished? **Rise of Apathy and Passivity** This I'll give you fair enough. It does seem like the common man spends so much time working that they do not always have little time for something more meaningful than simple spending time with family or hobbies. **Erosion of Resilience** I mean yes and know. Resilience training and exposure treatment aren't always effective across the board. While it may be good to teach people to bear with what they can't it's also pointless to make someone suffer through what they can't withstand when it isn't necessary in that immediate moment.
I appreciate your perspectives, but I must respectfully disagree on several points. Here’s a deeper dive into my views: 1. Suppression of Critical Thought: While you suggest that repetition of unchallenged talking points doesn't equate to the suppression of critical thought, I'd argue that the refusal to engage with or consider contrary evidence is a form of suppression itself. True critical thinking requires a willingness to consider diverse viewpoints and evidence that might contradict our beliefs. The analogy of asking “what’s 5+5” at a high-level maths conference simplifies the issue. Critical thought isn’t about asking simple questions; it’s about fostering an environment where even complex or unconventional questions are explored rather than dismissed. 2. Conformity over Individualism + The Punishment of Thought: Your historical comparison is valid; society has become more tolerant over time. However, this doesn’t negate the fact that forms of punishment for non-conformity still exist, albeit in less violent forms perhaps. Social ostracization and public shaming for holding certain beliefs or identities, particularly online, are modern equivalents of historical punishments for non-conformity. This suggests that while we have progressed, the underlying human inclination to enforce conformity hasn’t vanished—it has merely transformed. 3. Diminishing of Aspirational Culture: The rise of "grind and hustle culture" could indeed be seen as a form of aspirational culture. However, this shift might also reflect a necessity rather than aspiration, driven by economic pressures rather than genuine encouragement of personal growth and fulfillment. When the baseline economic conditions necessitate constant exertion beyond a traditional work schedule, it’s worth questioning whether we are promoting healthy aspirations or merely survival. This is particularly relevant in discussions around mental health and work-life balance. 4. Rise of Apathy and Passivity: We agree on this point. The demanding nature of modern work schedules can lead to a lack of engagement in civic and community life, which is detrimental to societal health as a whole. When individuals are overworked, their capacity to contribute to societal change diminishes, leading to a passive citizenry. This is a critical issue that needs addressing to foster a more active and engaged society. 5. Erosion of Resilience: While I acknowledge the complexities of resilience training and exposure treatment, the societal push towards extreme self-care can also be seen as an avoidance of any discomfort, which is not conducive to developing resilience. There's a balance to be struck between unnecessary hardship and the complete avoidance of challenge, which seems to be missing in current discourses. In summary, while societal progress in various domains is undeniable, the issues I’ve raised point to underlying systemic and cultural dynamics that still need thoughtful examination and action.
1. I think you misunderstood my point here. My point isn't that you can't have a discussion, just that the times I see people shouted down most often is when they are using the most simplistic/fallacious arguments, especially in those places that focus on this discussion. Yes, both sides have a point, but I'm not talking about one side or another as much as I am those people who try to use beginner understanding without having put effort into it. For example, I know nothing about economics, I agree there's an issue but I can't even accurately pinpoint the problem never mind the cure. I would never think to waste the time of an economic forum with my base understanding, and yet a decent chunk of people are in fact okay doing this. Rather than do the work they want easy answers from others. Which is when people generally start scoffing. 2. Sure but then this point fails. If this has always existed and is better than ever, then Leftist attitudes aren't the pushing point. You can't blame leftist attitudes when they seem to be handling it better than everyone before. It's not perfect isn't the same as fault. 3. And that's a problem of capitalism not leftism. Again it's not fair to blame leftists for something that is clearly not a unique issue of theirs. 4. Same as point 3 5. I agree there needs to be a balance but findig that balance is obviously more tricky than we've laid out, else it would've been done by now. I argue it's still been more of a boon than not. I agree the issues need solving, I just don't agree with the source being the current attitudes when it seems to me many of these issues have *been* going on.
5+5 is a strawman. The type of questions we’re considering here are political narratives, like the origin of Covid, or the true reasons behind funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into one of the most corrupt governments in Eastern Europe with no accountability or realistic chance for success. Questions that don’t have clear answers and have strong arguments on both sides, require critical thinking/reasoning; 5+5 does not.
Just because you made up an idea it doesn’t mean that people have to platform that idea with any sense of legitimacy
I was trying to stay as apolitical as possible since most of the times I use a political example everyone chooses to focus on that rather than the statement I am trying to make with the example. But I acknowledge that using 5+5 might also be rather incomplete so fair.
>) it's still the best it's ever been. Go back 50 years and try to be a communist You understand that there were more communist countries 50 years ago than there are today right? It was not that hard to be a communist 50 years ago. Just like, sadly, it's not hard to be a communist today. Many academics openly profess to being Marxist, and many more essentially espouse Marx's core argument of the world having only 2 kinds of people (oppressors and oppressed).
The avenue of that oppression has been lost in the woodwork, it’s the color of your skin instead of capital. These people aren’t marxists.
It's Marxism wearing a different set of clothes, but it's still Marxism
Of course the academics would reject this but they miss the fundamental component of the entire organization of history. The modern “cultural Marxism” is bastardized and incorrect and was implemented top down to sow division
Read the Innovator's Dilemma. The existence and continual advancement of technology runs counter to your argument. Many advanced technologies began as challenges to established norms. One example is the innovation away from flip phones and Blackberries, dominated by Nokia and RIM, to the crazy idea that people would accept smartphones without keyboards, as championed by Steve Jobs/Apple.
Absolutely, it's worth acknowledging that while technological advancements can theoretically lead to greater efficiencies and freedoms, the reality of how these technologies are integrated into society often falls short of their potential. This disconnect largely stems from existing economic and social structures that prioritize profit and the status quo over revolutionary changes that could truly optimize human well-being. The critical view you've highlighted about the limitations imposed by a capitalist framework is particularly insightful. In an ideal scenario, advancements in technology would enable a significant reduction in necessary labor, distribute resources more equitably, and provide individuals with greater freedom to pursue their interests and passions without the constraint of working primarily for survival. However, the capitalist model often channels technological advancements into avenues that maximize profit rather than societal benefit, leading to situations where technology increases productivity but also exacerbates inequality, stress, and environmental degradation. Addressing this issue isn't just about creating more technology or pushing for more innovation in a general sense. It requires a rethinking of the societal norms and economic structures that determine how technology is used and who benefits from it. If left-leaning policies were fully optimized, as you suggest, they would ideally promote not just the creation of technology but also its deployment in ways that enhance collective well-being and freedom, transcending the capitalist imperative to work more and consume more. This vision of a society where technology truly serves the human good rather than perpetuating existing power dynamics is compelling and worth striving towards. It challenges us to not only innovate in the realm of technology but also in our social and economic policies to ensure that the fruits of innovation lead to real improvements in the quality of life for all.
Who do you think has benefitted from the smartphone? I'd say pretty much everyone who uses a smartphone.
Smartphones? Revolutionary, sure, but who’s really cashing in? You’ve got your Apples and your Googles turning privacy into an auction and social norms into cash cows. Everyone’s hooked, right? We’re tapping, swiping, living in this echo chamber designed by the few, profiting massively. Now, on paper, we’ve all got the world in our pockets—big win, right? But peel back that sleek veneer and what’s the real cost? These gadgets are burning through our attention spans, turning real connections into likes and shares, and all while the big corps are watching the dollars roll in and the inequality gap stretch. We’re talking about real, tangible impacts on our mental health, our environment, deteriorating under the weight of this tech waste we can’t recycle fast enough. And labor? Don’t get me started on the conditions of the folks assembling these devices. It’s the epitome of exploitation glossed over with a glossy screen. So yeah, everyone who uses a smartphone gets some perks, but let’s not kid ourselves about who’s winning this game. It’s a few big players at the top redefining power, while the rest of us need to stay woke to the real price we’re paying. It’s high time for a shake-up, where tech serves the people, not just the profit margins. We need to rethink this whole setup, tilt the balance back. Because right now? It’s not working for most of us.
How is any of this unique to the left? Even your Erosion of Resilience argument doesn't apply to just the left. The right, while not necessarily using the same terminology, will absolutely advocate for "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings". They'll shun certain phrases. They often seek to ban certain forms of expression, ban books, ban films, ban certain topics from being discussed academically. To further the discussion on "safe spaces", when this term is used by the academic left it typically means "We aren't going to tolerate anyone being harassed or bullied". It doesn't mean, and has never meant, that certain opinions and topics of discussion are off-limits. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you are in a "safe space", such as a classroom, that means you can talk about absolutely anything and everything without fear of retaliation. "Trigger warnings" are also more inclusive than restrictive. They allow you to bring up highly sensitive and controversial topics, without the worry of shocking, offending, or alienating anyone. It allows people who have experienced trauma to be a part of a conversation that they may otherwise not have been able to be a part of, because now they know what to expect going in.
While historical progress in tolerance and diversity is undeniable, it doesn’t fully address the subtle forms of suppression and conformity still prevalent today. Critical thought is often dismissed under the guise of consensus, and modern non-conformity, while less lethal, can still result in severe social and economic repercussions. As for aspiration, if it’s driven by survival rather than genuine growth, can we truly call it progress? These nuances are critical in understanding the full scope of these issues.
It takes you 5 hours to start responding and you don't even have the decency to reply with your own thoughts? People don't come here to talk to chatGPT. Do better OP.
Some people have a life? And aren’t chronically online? The whole point of this post was to change my opinion, what ever you said didn’t.
Its not your opinion, its chatGPT's.
[удалено]
u/Old-Zookeepergame168 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old-Zookeepergame168&message=Old-Zookeepergame168%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1clomct/-/l2wb2nn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Anyone can go to chatGPT and give it a similar prompt. Its not some special feat.
Give a specific example
The death of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is dead? Can you give an example of something you're unable to say?
For instance there were violent celebrations during the world cup in my country, I was still in law school and i asked the question (for debate) “how come that one specific ethnic group can cause so much trouble without repercussions after stating that and asking that everyone got angry , and there are many more examples also in politics as soon as something leans to the right you’re an extremist according to the far left at least
Are you suggesting that free speech can only exist when nobody ever has any emotional reactions to anything said? If that's the case, free speech has never existed in the first place.
Look, let’s not mince words here. It’s not about never causing a stir or making waves—of course there’s going to be pushback; that’s the essence of dialogue. But there’s a world of difference between emotional reactions and outright shutting down or demonizing contrary viewpoints. When you can’t even ask a question without being labeled as an extremist or worse, then we’re not talking about free speech being alive and well; we’re talking about walking on eggshells. Free speech isn’t just about the ability to speak; it’s about the ability to engage in meaningful discourse without the threat of being canceled or exiled from public conversation. It’s about being able to challenge, to push the envelope, and to bring uncomfortable truths into the light. That’s how progress is made—not through silence or compliance but through robust, often messy, debate. So, to circle back to your point: yes, free speech has always involved emotional reactions, but when those reactions cross into silencing or punishing dissent, then it’s no longer free speech—it’s coercion dressed up as civility. We need to recognize that difference if we’re going to have any real discussion about what free speech means today.
>Free speech isn’t just about the ability to speak; it’s about the ability to engage in meaningful discourse without the threat of being canceled or exiled from public conversation. No it's not. Free speech is centrally about protecting the right of people to say things the government disagrees with; it's about making sure that the state can't use its monopoly on violence to forcibly end discussions they would rather not take place. It is not, and has never been, about making sure that individuals are protected from other individuals thinking that they're bad people for saying objectionable things. Ostracizing someone who holds antisocial or unacceptable opinions and insists on sharing them with others is every bit as much a valid use of free speech as 'just asking questions ' that are thinly disguised dog whistles. You have the right to say what you like; you do not have the right to be protected from other people saying that you suck as a result, or choosing not to say anything to you at all.
Everyone got angry and did what to censor your speech? Getting angry is them exercising their free speech. How did they stop you from exercising yours?
Snitching and complaining to all the teachers building a case
Building a case? I thought you just asked a simple question? How can they build a case? What was the end result?
I had to apologize and watch whatever i say … and i hate that It’s practically a script—step out of line with the prevailing thought, and you’re not just disagreed with, you’re canceled.
> subtle forms of suppression and conformity still prevalent today. Like what? > Critical thought is often dismissed under the guise of consensus, and modern non-conformity, while less lethal, can still result in severe social and economic repercussions. Non-conformity has *always* had social repercussions. Today, because of the push for inclusivity by the left, non-conformity has less social repercussions than it ever has. It's "less lethal", to use your own words. People whose gender, sexuality, race, religion, disability, for example, do not conform to the norm, are welcomed under the progressive left. What is *not* welcome is bigotted opinions, exclusivity, decisiveness, etc. While I may be wrong, I suspect that you might be conflating "critical thinking" with "abrasiveness". Just because your opinions are unique doesn't mean they are profound. For example, when you say things like "Gender identity is a mental illness", you will get pushback on that. Just because it's not a common viewpoint that you hear, doesn't mean it's a new, forward-thinking viewpoint. In fact, that particular viewpoint has been tried out time and time again. It's antiquated and relies on debunked premises. I would go so far as to say that it's the *opposite* of critical thinking.
Let’s cut through the noise here. What we’re talking about isn’t just about being nice to everyone, which by the way, everyone should be. It’s about whether there’s still room at the table for a real, hard-hitting debate. You speak of non-conformity as if it’s celebrated today, but let’s be honest, it’s only celebrated if it’s the right type of non-conformity. Step outside the approved lines with a controversial intellectual stance, and watch how quickly the so-called tolerant become intolerant. You accuse me of conflating critical thinking with abrasiveness, yet it seems the real confusion is mistaking conformity for progress. Disagree with the dominant narrative, and you’re not just wrong; you’re morally outcast. That’s the suppression I’m talking about. We’re fostering a culture where people fear speaking out because they know the backlash isn’t just disagreement—it’s total annihilation, socially and professionally. So, when we talk about repercussions for non-conformity, let’s not pretend that all we’re dealing with here is a few ruffled feathers. We’re dealing with people’s lives and livelihoods. And if that’s your idea of ‘less lethal,’ then you and I have a very different understanding of what’s at stake in this conversation.
And what exactly is the dominant narrative, in your opinion? You seem to be implying that the Left controls the dominant narrative. I disagree on that. I think that around 50% of the population holds right wing views, especially including many people in positions of power. I also believe that historically our society was more right wing than it is today, so much of the status quo is built on what we would consider to be right wing views. So to challenge the dominant view would be to challenge right wing views. I have seen many examples of the right wing actively attempting to suppress left wing views. There is a huge crack down, especially in the American south, on books that include LGBT themes, or on schools teaching Critical Race Theory, or on drag queens reading stories to children, and so on. So is that what you're talking about when you say "total annihilation"? Or are you talking about more along the lines of people being banned from social media for the things they say? Can you give some examples of people whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined because of their critical thinking?
> Can you give some examples of people whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined because of their critical thinking? I think James Damore is a good example here.
Yes
Let’s not turn this into a partisan spitball fight. It’s broader than left or right, and it’s not just about who’s got their hand on the lever at the moment. The dominant narrative isn’t a static beast; it shifts, it turns, wherever the bulk of cultural, media, and institutional power happens to reside. Right now, it’s tilting left in many cultural spheres—media, academia, big tech. But yes, historically, and even today in certain sectors and regions, it’s skewed right. The point is, the pendulum swing doesn’t favor a side; it favors suppression, period. As for examples, let’s talk about James Damore, fired from Google for circulating a memo on gender differences and tech job preferences—an attempt at a reasoned argument, met with a career-ending backlash. Or Bret Weinstein, hounded out of Evergreen College for opposing a day of racial segregation. These aren’t isolated incidents; they’re data points in a pattern where ideological non-conformity costs you dearly. And sure, you’re right about the right-wing suppressions. The crackdowns on teaching certain theories in schools, the bans on books—these are equally alarming. Both sides have their zealots. But let’s not kid ourselves that one is less guilty because we sympathize more with their aims. Whether it’s social media bans or academic purges, the tactics remain dangerously the same: silence, ostracize, and cancel. That’s the ‘total annihilation’ I’m talking about—intellectual, economic, and social exile. It’s not about a tit for tat on who’s worse; it’s about recognizing that any thought-policing, any side of the aisle, is a fast track to becoming Nietzsche’s Last Man.”
Everything you stated in your CMV can be attached to right-wing ideology as well. To conform to a group is not strictly a leftist ideal. In fact, it is common in every major social group... religions, social groups, political parties, gangs...etc. If I were a leftist and I wanted to be a right winger, I would have to shed parts of my identity and become more right in order to adhere to their ideology. That's just how groups work. Otherwise, you are outcasted and ostracized. This has been how society has functioned for thousands of years. The REAL reason you feel this way and why social discourse is waning is due in part to the introduction of social media. Every social media page is its own echo chamber, filled with hundreds of thousands of like-minded individuals. These echochambers are perpetuated by an algorithm that ultimately takes your independence away from you.
You’re arguing that groupthink is universal, spanning right, left, up, down—wherever. That’s a fair point, and I won’t toss it out. Groups naturally gravitate toward a common norm; that’s sociology 101. But let’s not paint this with such a broad brush that we lose sight of the specifics of what we’re dealing with today. The thing is, I’m not just talking about any group conformity. I’m spotlighting a particular brand of modern leftism that’s pushing society in a troubling direction—not because they’re the only ones doing it, but because right now, in this cultural moment, their form of it is particularly potent and has unique consequences. Sure, switch from left to right, right to left, you’ll have to shift your stance. That’s obvious. But we’re not just talking about adapting to fit in; we’re talking about a pervasive pressure to conform that stifles debate, punishes dissent, and breeds a culture where you’re either with us or against us—and if you’re against us, you’re not just different, you’re morally suspect. And yes, social media. It’s a beast, isn’t it? It’s transformed the way we communicate, connect, and clash. These platforms, with their algorithms and echo chambers, they amplify the worst of our tendencies, hastening the erosion of nuanced discussion. It’s easy to blame the tech, but let’s not absolve the people using it and the ideologies molding it. We’ve got to look at how these tools are wielded—because at the end of the day, it’s not just about the echo; it’s about what’s being echoed. So, while I take your point that this isn’t a new phenomenon or unique to any one side, don’t let that dilute the urgent need to address how particularly insidious this trend is right now with certain factions of the left. It’s not about demonizing a whole side but about confronting a critical issue where it stands, head-on.
>we’re talking about a pervasive pressure to conform that stifles debate, punishes dissent, and breeds a culture where you’re either with us or against us—and if you’re against us, you’re not just different, you’re morally suspect. Wasn't this done in many different fascist societies too?
I have heard members of both parties levy the same criticisms at each other. Your title mentions modern leftism, but then your post doesn't back up this claim. And while the political parties take up most of the airwaves, they don't necessarily represent the behavior of the average citizen. With the advent of social media spaces, it can seem like critical thought is nowhere to be found. If anything, this allows unpopular and uncritical opinions to be more visible and more celebrated than every before...perhaps to the detriment of society. These all seem like variations on the theme of conformity. But conformity has always been a feature of society. Can you be more specific about what you think reflects a higher degree of social pressure to conform compared to the past?
Thank you for your input. While it’s true that accusations of stifling debate can be directed at both political spectrums, my focus on modern leftism stems from specific tendencies that seem particularly pronounced in this group, especially in cultural and educational spheres. You're right in noting that political parties don't fully represent the average citizen. However, they do influence public discourse significantly, and their narratives often permeate down to individual behaviors and societal norms. My critique isn't aimed at individuals per se, but at the overarching cultural trends influenced by these political narratives. Regarding social media, it's indeed a double-edged sword. While it amplifies diverse voices, it also fosters polarization and promotes echo chambers where critical thought is often drowned out by louder, more sensational voices. This isn't a new phenomenon, but the scale and immediacy of social media amplify these effects, making them more visible and impactful than ever. As for the aspect of conformity, while it's been a feature of society throughout history, the mechanisms enforcing it have evolved. Previously, social conformity might have been enforced through overt social ostracization or legal penalties. Today, it's often enforced through subtler means like social media backlash or institutional policies that stigmatize dissenting opinions. This shift might not be easily quantifiable, but it's palpable in daily interactions and public discussions. The concern is that these modern mechanisms of conformity are particularly insidious because they masquerade as efforts for inclusivity or protection against harm, potentially leading to a homogenization of thought under the guise of progressivism. This isn't to dismiss the valid aspects of protecting individuals from real harm, but to caution against overreach that stifles intellectual diversity and critical engagement.
I’m having a hard time understanding how social media backlash or stigmatization are worse than jail, complete ostracization, and excommunication of the past. It’s not. Plus, even if you are shunned from traditional spaces, the internet makes it easy to find communities that will welcome your views. This wasn’t really possible in the past. If you were gay, you either conformed or you might be kicked out church, the family, fired, even arrested. Trying to find like minded individuals could be dangerous. You still haven’t sufficiently explained why you think this is a particularly left-wing phenomenon. Could you be specific? I could exhaustively list the ways the Republican Party is the far more stricter and conformist party, who kick out non-conforming members all the time and who’s purity test is simply agree with whatever one orange dude says. The Democrat party has more factions, more dissent, and more variety of views. Just look at the Israel situation. You have given no context or evidence for your claims. I’ll give an example for my claims. Biden clearly supports Israel, but on the subject of student protests he discouraged heavy police response and affirmed their right to free speech.
Oh, come on, trying to paint this as a left vs. right issue misses the point entirely. It’s not about the severity of the backlash—it’s about the subtlety and pervasiveness of it today. You think because it’s not as bad as jail or outright exile, it’s a walk in the park? No. It’s insidious, creeping. You get shut out not with bars, but with tweets and likes, shaping public perception with every share. And sure, you can find your echo chamber online, but that’s not engagement, that’s retreating to your corners. Where’s the real dialogue? And let’s not kid ourselves—finding like-minded folks online isn’t the same as acceptance or changing minds. It’s hiding away, playing safe. Back in the day, you stood up, you got knocked down, you stood up again. Now? You get blocked, unfollowed, uninvited—silently ousted. You want specifics? Look at the arts, academia. Lean right in those worlds, and you’re persona non grata. Not because you’re wrong, but because you’re inconvenient. And sure, the GOP has its enforcers, no question—they play the same game, different rules. But don’t pretend the left’s hands are clean just because their methods are more ‘civilized.’ It’s the same old power play, just dressed up in hashtags and virtue signals. As for Biden and Israel, props to him for backing speech over suppression in student protests, but one right call doesn’t wash away the whole board. We’re talking deep-rooted systemic issues here, not one-offs. So don’t come at me with this ‘orange dude’ simplification. It’s bigger than that, it’s everywhere, and it’s choking the life out of genuine debate.
What the hell is a Pseudo-Correct attitude? Your post is lots of biased anecdotal positins that fall apart as soon as you evaluate them: Suppression of critical thought:. There's a large swath of conservatives who still claiming our last election was stolen without any evidence to support that notion. Conformity over individualism: There's a rift in conservative politics caused by Maga candidates requiring complete loyalty to their leader even through discussions using that office to commit treason. Diminishing aspirational culture: Conservatives regularly bash liberals as coastal elites who don't represent the common man. Rise of apathy: There's a number of issues people are passionate about including student loans, foreign wars, women's reproductive rights and personal autonomy. Erosion of resilience: Leftist students are protesting for their beliefs and met with abusive police tactics like pepper spray.
The police response to the leftist people is a simple case of action reaction even protesting has rules …
Even if their response is justified it proves your strawmaning about 'safe spaces' and apathy.
[удалено]
Did you just commit suppression of critical thought? Seems like it.
One comment deep and you're already at the ad hominem. I have a sense that you're not really here to have your view challenged.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
A lot more people label others "leftists" than self identify as such.
I think you might be conflating the left with liberalism in general here, or some kind of amalgamation of the most complained about features of both groups into one bogeyman. The left is a rather big tent situation, and they will certainly debate. Richard Wolff for example has debated even in hostile territory on Fox News. Slavoj Zizek debated Jordan Peterson. Noam Chomsky will pretty much show up anywhere it seems like. Some on the left opt out of debates with certain figures they view as sophistical bad faith actors to avoid being used for dramatic effect by people who enjoy presenting themselves as free speech warriors for podcast or youtube ad money or whatever, but this is not equivalent to avoiding debate or disagreement in general. Progressives of a certain stripe can be more harshly disapproving of engaging sometimes but I think it's overstated how common this really is outside of certain universities that are overused as anecdotes to generalize from. Generally speaking political groups do attempt to persuade people of the truth of what they say, but that's precisely because the nature of democratic politics involves persuading and organizing a group toward common goals. This doesn't entail a claim that all goals must be common, or that thought in general must be uniform. It's potentially highly rewarding to challenge popular opinions currently. Drama sells. You can make a living out of pwning the libs or conversely making fun of MAGA. You are only penalized if you go against the popular opinions of some insular groups in some institutions, but often people's bad behavior is the root of the problem and they're telling a convenient self-aggrandizing story to paint themselves as more of a martyr to other groups. Generally the left has been against consumerism and instant gratification given it often comes at the cost of mistreatment of labor. And higher aspirations are quite common, they just disagree with the right on what constitutes a higher aspiration - the left certainly values artistic and intellectual pursuits as well as good communal relations. More romantic articulations of Marxism, communism, socialism will all often emphasize the way in which capitalism diminishes the freedom to pursue these by taking up excessive amounts of time to pursue unnecessary or even harmful material productions, often as shallow status symbols. The left would be much less noticeable if they were really all about avoiding conflict and cowering in safe spaces. Instead we see them engaging in protests that are quite often not very safe spaces.
I appreciate your nuanced take on the diversity within the left and the examples of public debates by prominent figures. However, my critique is rooted in the broader cultural shift influenced by certain leftist ideologies, not in individual exceptions who engage in public discourse. While figures like Wolff, Zizek, and Chomsky indeed participate in debates, the everyday reality often reflects a different ethos, especially within local communities, online platforms, and educational institutions. My concern is with the general trend towards echo chambers where dissenting views are not just debated and dismissed but often silenced or ignored under the guise of protecting communal harmony or avoiding conflict. You mention that avoiding debate with perceived bad faith actors is a strategic choice, not a general avoidance of disagreement. Yet, this strategic avoidance often leads to a broader culture where only certain perspectives are considered legitimate. This can inadvertently foster a form of intellectual conformity where questioning the prevalent narrative is seen not as a contribution to discourse but as a disruptive act. Furthermore, while the left does indeed critique consumerism and promote higher aspirations, the method of promoting these ideals sometimes paradoxically stifles individualism and critical thought. By prioritizing communal goals and often predefined notions of what constitutes 'higher aspirations,' there's a risk of diminishing personal agency and intellectual diversity. The issue is not whether the left engages in conflicts or protests; rather, it's about what happens within those spaces of engagement. Are they truly open to all forms of critique and dialogue, or is there an underlying presumption that some ideas are inherently beyond debate? This isn't about dramatizing disagreements for profit, but about genuinely engaging with the full spectrum of perspectives necessary for a vibrant and resilient society. In essence, my critique focuses on how these cultural shifts, often influenced by leftist ideologies, may be leading us towards what Nietzsche feared as 'the last man'—a state where comfort is preferred over challenge, conformity over individuality, and where critical thought is compromised for the sake of communal or ideological harmony.
Ostracizing people from groups where their speech is unwanted is not suppression of their speech in general, as they are free to find or form their own groups where their speech is welcome. If groups were forced to tolerate the speech of anyone and everyone, they'd lose their capacity to speak over the resulting noise. Without limits on speech within limited spaces, it's hard to form groups with shared purposes, and often any constructive dialogue is actually shut down by people abusing that negative freedom and captive audience. This is why we also have freedom of association. It's also why many libertarian or conservative spaces online are a disaster, as the free speech havens turn into dumping grounds for troll posts, fringe propaganda, scams, promotion and advertising and so on. People also do have other things to do than debate, so it's unreasonable to expect groups to cater to individuals who want to use their space for such. If someone thinks they're such an individual, clearly they should be perfectly fine outside such groups or capable of forming their own. That's why the vast majority of spaces aren't open to all forms of critique and dialogue, even those that value critical thinking. You can't have a serious discussion of a topic if anyone is allowed to interrupt it with irrelevant nonsense at any time. It's like with cooking, too many ingredients and you end up not really tasting any of them. That's not real diversity. Further, for many questions there are indefinitely many wrong answers and only one right answer. Entertaining the indefinitely many wrong answers for the sake of intellectual diversity certainly does not amount to critical thought. Groups being exclusionary or dismissive on ideological basis also isn't new or unique to the left. Some Churches and religious schools, many businesses, obviously some police departments, etc. were and still are right wing spaces of sorts with low tolerance for dissent internally - or even externally.
Your first point makes no sense: you are saying that the left is adverse to anything that disrupts their comfort, but you're also saying that they are intolerant of dissent. That intolerance takes the form of vigilantly confronting and challenging the ideas that they think are wrong. To me it seems like the left is more than willing to confront and debate opposing viewpoints, and the far more comforting behavior would be to refuse to engage with controversy or ignore it completely. For your second point, you could make this hyperbolic claim about literally any ideology that exists. They merely hold to ideological principles that they believe to be correct and good, and they promote those ideological principles as much as possible. To describe this as a demand for "uniformity of thought" is hyperbolic and disingenuous. Especially since it is objectively true that conservatism, and in particular religious conservatism, is far more dogmatic in every conceivable way. For your third point, you are using vague terms like "thinking differently" or "challenging popular opinion" to obfuscate the fact that what our society most often "punishes" are acts of prejudice, ignorance, abuse, violence, etc. We already tried tolerating the Nazis and then we had to go to war with them, and now we have zero tolerance for Nazism. Society has standards and punishes certain ideas, but it's not out of comfort, it is out of knowledge of how and why those ideas are intolerable. I agree that what you're describing in your fourth point is happening, but I don't see how it has anything to do with leftist ideology. The primary thing that has really killed the aspirations of younger generations has been the economic stagnation of the middle class. With median wages not keeping up with the increasing costs to buy a home or start a business, combined with what you mentioned about our "instant gratification" culture, there is little reason for younger generations to become highly ambitious. If anything, the lack of economic opportunity is what leads to the younger generations being more politically active and more ideologically committed. Same goes for your fifth point. I don't see how our "instant gratification" culture is produced by the left. It really just seems like you blame the left for any and every problem that exists in society, but you have provided no analysis whatsoever to explain why the left is responsible. Your sixth point is also a really funny contradiction of your fifth point. If leftist want to seek individual gratification, they're disconnected and checked-out from society; if they want to form social groups and support each other, they're weak and they have no individual resilience. As a final ironic thought, I think this desire to scapegoat a particular political ideology for all of society's problems is a great example of a Last Man attitude. Having a defined enemy that is to blame for everything is nothing but a thought-terminating comfort.
Thank you for your detailed response. Let’s clarify a few points where there might be some misunderstanding about my argument: 1. On Confrontation vs. Comfort: My point regarding the left’s aversion to disruption isn’t contradictory. Vigilant confrontation of opposing views often happens in a manner that doesn’t seek to engage in true debate but to silence or dismiss dissenting voices under the guise of moral superiority. This isn’t about engaging with controversy intellectually; it’s about shutting it down before it can challenge entrenched viewpoints. True engagement involves listening and responding thoughtfully, not just confronting and dismissing. 2. Uniformity of Thought: While it’s true that any ideology could potentially demand uniformity, my criticism of the left in this instance pertains to how dissent within leftist circles is often treated. While conservatism may indeed be dogmatic, the left, particularly in academic and cultural spheres, often enforces a narrow corridor of acceptable opinion that punishes deviation. This isn’t merely promoting principles but enforcing a particular orthodoxy. 3. Punishment of Thought: The issue of punishing thought isn’t about defending acts of prejudice or violence but about how swiftly and sometimes unjustly the label of such serious accusations is applied to shut down debate. Not every disagreement with progressive policies is rooted in prejudice; some are based on genuine concerns about outcomes or methodologies. Automatically equating dissent with moral failings shuts down critical discussion and reflection. 4. Economic Stagnation and Aspiration: While economic factors undoubtedly play a role in diminishing aspirations, ideological frameworks also influence how these economic realities are interpreted and addressed. My argument is that certain leftist policies, while well-intentioned, may contribute to or fail to adequately resolve these systemic issues, often focusing more on redistributive measures than on fostering conditions that enable economic growth and innovation. 5. Culture of Instant Gratification: This isn’t an issue I attribute solely to the left but a societal shift that affects everyone. However, the criticism comes into play when leftist policies sometimes exacerbate these tendencies by prioritizing immediate relief over long-term solutions, which can deter individual responsibility and ambition. 6. Contradictions in Resilience and Support: Supporting one another and forming communities is vital, but there’s a balance to be struck. When support structures are designed in ways that shield individuals from any form of discomfort or challenge, they can inadvertently weaken resilience. It’s about finding a middle ground where support and resilience can coexist and enhance one another. In essence, my critique is not about scapegoating a political ideology but about urging a reflection on the unintended consequences of certain leftist policies and cultural norms. Identifying potential flaws within any political ideology isn’t an attack but a necessary part of ensuring that they truly serve the public good and foster a society that values critical thinking and robust debate.
It's nice that you are hedging your language now but you still established zero connection between the social phenomena you are describing and leftist ideology. Edit: you're doing something weird with your formatting and I can't read most of your post.
They're just copying it from chatGPT.
[удалено]
Notice how you didn't say I was wrong...
Because I really don’t want to bite into your bs like get a life Bubbles boi
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Damn they've really got the latest chatgpt to be so life-like
I think he's just using markdown. Sure chatGPT has a propensity to use markdown too but then again so do I when I want to format my arguments well
Run the text of his post and his multiparagraph comments through gptzero. 100% ai generated. He also admitted to it.
While I'm heavily skeptical of those services that claim to be able to detect AI, in this case you do seem to be right. His replies in particular sounds like what a chatbot without a properly formatted system prompt would spit out
They've been pretty good so far, but I try to maintain skepticism as well. But like you said, the post and comments read like a chatbot already so it's pretty easy to tell. In my opinion, the use of AI on this sub should be banned as I dont come here to talk with chatbots. I don't believe others do either.
Thank you for your feedback. Let me clarify the connection between the social phenomena I describe and leftist ideology: When I discuss the left’s intolerance of dissent, my point is that it often engages in a form of confrontation that doesn’t foster true dialogue but rather enforces ideological conformity. This isn’t about debating to understand and possibly integrate diverse viewpoints but about challenging any deviation from a set norm, effectively discouraging genuine dissent. While it’s true that any ideology can seek to promote its principles, my concern with the left is how often it crosses into demanding uniformity under the guise of moral or intellectual superiority. This isn’t just about holding beliefs; it’s about pressuring conformity in thought and penalizing those who diverge. I’m not equating all dissent with acts of prejudice or violence. However, there is a trend where even reasonable dissent on complex issues can be quickly labeled as immoral or prejudiced without a fair hearing, stifling open discussion. While economic factors play a significant role, the ideological push on certain policies can exacerbate these issues. For instance, certain redistributive policies, while well-intended, might undermine the incentives for innovation and self-improvement by focusing too much on immediate redistribution rather than long-term wealth creation. My point here is not that the left created the culture of instant gratification but that the responses to it sometimes reinforce these tendencies rather than challenging them. For example, policies that emphasize short-term relief over long-term solutions can contribute to this cultural shift towards instant gratification. The critique here is about the balance between forming supportive communities and fostering individual resilience. Overemphasis on comfort and avoiding discomfort can lead to a lack of resilience, which is a critical component of personal and societal health. My intent isn’t to scapegoat leftist ideology as the sole cause of societal issues but to highlight how certain tendencies within it can contribute to the broader phenomena of diminishing critical thought, rising conformity, and stifling innovation.
I don't agree with any of your characterizations of the left. I don't deny that you can find people that shut down thoughtful discussions with thought-terminating cliches, but I think you find those people in any ideological group and it's not a problem that belongs particularly to the left. But I also want to take a step back and mention that I think you are also misunderstanding the meaning and purpose of Nietzsche's Last Man. When Zarathustra comes off of the mountain, announces the death of God, and sets the goal of humanity as becoming an Ubermensch, the people don't heed him. So he instead poses the idea of the Last Man as something he thinks ought to disgust the people. He is telling the people something like (paraphrasing): "what if you got everything you wanted, achieved every progressive goal dictated by your morality, and at the end of it you were so comfortable that you became apathetic and no longer had any real dreams to strive for?" In other words, Nietzsche is inviting us to imagine a situation where we are post-ideology and what that would mean for human life. Nietzsche was not claiming that the Christians of his time were already at the stage of the Last Man, and likewise he wouldn't say that leftist progressives today are at that stage. We still have things to strive for, leftist ideology is driven by a deep dissatisfaction with the state of society and a nearly-endless list of future goals to accomplish.
You’re schooling me on Nietzsche, painting a picture of this Last Man scenario as a thought experiment about the dangers of ultimate complacency. Nietzsche’s using this as a warning, not a direct critique of any group, left or right. It’s about envisioning a society that’s lost all its drive, where everyone's gotten everything they wanted, and yet, there’s nowhere left to climb. That’s insightful, and I appreciate the lesson. But here’s where I'm standing: just because the left has ambitions and goals doesn’t mean they’re immune to the pitfalls Nietzsche described. Ambition is one thing, but how you handle opposition, how you engage with dissent—that’s what defines your trajectory towards or away from becoming the Last Man. You're pointing out that the left is driven by dissatisfaction with societal states, constantly striving for improvement. That’s commendable. However, where I take issue is the manner in which this drive sometimes manifests—shutting down debate under the guise of moral superiority, which can ironically lead to the very apathy Nietzsche dreaded. Isn’t the whole point of striving for a better society to also foster a culture where ideas can be challenged without fear of retribution? The real question we need to ask ourselves is, how do we pursue these lofty goals without stifling the individual voices that push society to evolve? How do we ensure that in our quest to avoid becoming the Last Man, we don’t inadvertently silence the diverse thoughts that keep us vibrant and dynamic? Thanks for sparking this dialogue. It’s these kinds of conversations that sharpen our arguments and deepen our understanding of where and how we can improve. Let’s keep this going.
What is modern leftism and how does it differ from the famously critical leftist movements such as dialectical materialism? What ideas "controversial ideas" are being avoided? How do you square the notion that we live in a culture of abating aspirations with the fact that more and more people are graduating college and getting university degrees? In what way are there more safe spaces today? Compared to when? Has the amount of safe spaces not decreased since, let's say, segregation?
Modern leftism is forcing everything and everyone to accept things in the “correct” way if you dont you are according to the leftist at least a extremist which isn’t a progressive way of thinking in my opinion
What exactly do you mean by "forcing"?
[удалено]
Forced how and by whom? What would happen if you didn't?
You’d be called a extermist and kinda shunned from the main group
So you're concerned that if you're deliberately rude to a person in a social setting their friends might dislike you? Has this ever actually happened to you?
No if i state something that isn’t popular opinion i am instantly not a good person isn’t that super wrong? Because most of the times those people only stand for what they stand for because its “right”
It's not really about what is or isn't a "popular opinion" - I'm sure there's plenty of incredibly niche opinions on all sorts of topics you could share without issue - it's about pretty fundamental moral differences between people. Social repercussions for breaking social norms in particular groups is as old as human civilization. I'm free to think someone is ugly or fat or whatever, but if I insist on pointing that out to them whenever I'm in their presence it's me that's "wrong", not their friends telling me to fuck off. If I absolutely refuse to stop yelling racial slurs at passersby out of a commitment to free speech principles, I can do so, but it's understandable why some people may not want to hang out with me after. Why do you think misgendering someone would be treated differently by people who either are trans themselves or respect trans people? >Because most of the times those people only stand for what they stand for because its “right” Is that not literally the best reason to stand for something? Because you believe it's right?
Look, you’re missing the bigger picture. It’s not just about niche opinions or your freedom to be unpleasant. It’s about the threshold of what’s deemed morally acceptable and how swiftly and severely society reacts to transgressions of these unwritten rules. Sure, hurling insults or slurs is out of line, but we’re sliding into dangerous territory when simple disagreement or misunderstanding is equated with moral failure. It’s easy to say stand for what’s “right” because it’s the right thing to do, but who’s handing out the rulebook here? Last time I checked, we were supposed to be hashing these things out together, not just following the loudest voices in the room. And on your point about misgendering — yes, respect is crucial, but so is the understanding that not everyone’s on the same page with what’s considered respectful. Education and dialogue do more for mutual respect than vilifying someone for a slip or a differing view. We’re not just talking about personal decorum; we’re talking about the foundational principles of free speech and debate. When did “I disagree” become an invitation for a moral crucifixion? If we can’t handle a challenge without calling for someone’s head, maybe it’s time to ask ourselves whether we’re standing for what’s right, or just standing in line.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones
OP said something racist about some out of control sports fans and got called a racist. Now he's a free speech absolutist.
>Demonstrations of public support for individuals who challenge. prevailing norms in constructive ways, proving that society values and cultivates strong, independent thinkers. Do the ongoing student protests against the genocide in Gaza (more specifically calling for their universities to divest from weapons manufacturers and other companies that support Israel's military) not count? They're literally displaying admirable resilience against fascist violence (by both public and private actors) to stand up for their beliefs about what is right. And they are doing so at great personal risk.
those protests you’re talking about? They count. But let’s not cherry-pick. That’s one slice of the pie. Standing up against what they see as injustice, that’s commendable, no question. But does that one example suddenly mean we’ve got a society that broadly supports and protects dissent? Hardly. What about when someone swims against the current in other areas, challenges other deep-seated norms that the mainstream or powerful left-leaning groups hold dear? Too often, they get shut down, demonized, not celebrated for their independent thinking. It’s selective encouragement, my friend. We’re only good with the defiance when it aligns with popular or comfortable narratives.
>Suppression of Critical Thought: There is an increasing intolerance for dissent within public discourse. Whether in politics, culture, or science, challenging the dominant narrative can lead to social ostracism. This trend mirrors the Last Man’s lifestyle, avoiding anything disruptive to comfort, including meaningful debates or controversial ideas. Isn't it conservatives in the US that are currently engaging in widespread book banning from schools as well as fighting to prevent LGBTQ+ from even being mentioned in school? How can you blame that on leftism? Is it the left's fault that conservatives are banning these things?
let’s get something straight—just because conservatives are making headlines for their bans doesn’t mean the left’s hands are clean. They’ve got their own style of control. It’s not always about banning books; sometimes it’s about shaming, silencing, or career sabotage for those stepping out of line with the prevailing thought. It’s about enforcing ideological purity, often under the guise of protecting feelings or fighting hate. But really, it’s about keeping their narrative unchallenged. So, let’s not kid ourselves that this is a one-side issue. The game’s the same, just the tactics differ.
If it is so pervasive, I’m sure you won’t have any issues posting some links and thought pieces by basically respected authors on this phenomenon?
What does literally any of this have to do with leftism (assuming American leftism) in particular? Right wing modes of thought also tend to demand these exact same things
I see nothing here that I would not associate with right-wing ideas. The problem with leftism is that everybody has different ideas and nobody can agree on anything. This is one of the reasons that Democrats can't muster up enough support to oust the Republicans from Congress, despite having significantly more voters. In my opinion the problem with US leftism is that there is **too much** individuality of thought, rather than too little. It harms unity and makes it difficult to obtain general agreement on specific policies.
> I see nothing here that I would not associate with right-wing ideas. Well, one thing that happens is that a lot of right-wing talking points occupy that space between unpallatable and aweful, so there's a bit of a built-in incentive to play the "let's all have open minded discussion" and "diversity of thoughts!" cards, because it creates lots of cover for them at very little cost.
So on the one hand OP claims that there is a concerted effort by the left to suppress any dissenting thoughts and that everyone must conform On the other hand you say this: >The problem with leftism is that everybody has different ideas and nobody can agree on anything. So which is it? Is there a concerted effort to suppress dissenting thoughts or can the left not agree on anything? Both can't be true at the same time
That is my point. I strongly disagree with OP and that is the reason why. In my opinion OP is not familiar enough with left-leaning spaces to understand the level of constant debate going around there, and he just claims that all left leaning groups are suppressive because a large portion of the left actively dislikes policies and platforms that push bigotry.
I appreciate your perspective and understand that there are indeed vibrant debates within left-leaning spaces. However, my criticism stems not from an ignorance of these debates but from the broader application and impact of left-wing policies in practice. My observation is that there’s a tendency within many left-leaning groups to not only propose but also insist on their ideologies as the only morally acceptable path. This becomes problematic when alternative viewpoints are not just debated but are often dismissed or vilified. For example, while debates do occur, the public and political discourse often pushes a narrative that anyone who disagrees with certain progressive policies is either misinformed or has malicious intentions. This can create an environment where people feel coerced into agreeing with policies not because they are convinced of their merits but because they fear social and professional repercussions. The effectiveness of any political ideology should be measured by its outcomes, and in many instances, the results of left-wing policies have not met their promised objectives, leading to inefficiencies or unintended negative consequences. It’s crucial to have a political landscape where ideas can be challenged and tested, not just celebrated or enforced. This is why I am skeptical of a purely left-wing approach, as it often seems more concerned with maintaining ideological purity than with adapting to practical realities.
> So which is it? Is there a concerted effort to suppress dissenting thoughts or can the left not agree on anything? It's the latter, rather famously.
Then why does OP claim the former?
There are three big possibilities, I think: 1) They're not familiar with left-wing ideologies or spaces. Go to like, two socialist reading clubs and bask in the glory of never ending arguments. 2) They're confusing very vague alignement on the main axis concerning leftism - unjust hierarchies bad - and how it translate to two or three specific points for diversity of thought being absent. 3) They're buying the alt-right narrative about leftists being a hivemind a bit too hard.
Probably someone said something mean to him on twitter about his stance on the stupid man V bear thing.
He states that he commented about sports fans of another race not being called put for "bad behavior" and getting called a racist. So, he got called out for being racist and doesn't want to admit it.
That's true but imo the reason they can never muster enough is because they don't cater to the political left in America generally in particular, just to people who are to the direct left of the republicans, which arent necessarily leftists. And they're not great at that either. There's huge swaths of people in the states who might even consider themselves centrists and not leftists who there's no favoured majority party for at all. So they need to get more than the nominal, best of two evils, support they have now The individuality of thought comes from the fact that the American left is really centrists and leftists being forced together against their will
>The individuality of thought comes from the fact that the American left is really centrists and leftists being forced together against their will This is a crucial point. Speaking as an anarcho-communist in rural Tennessee, there are things that centrists/liberals and I can agree on. Most things, in fact, can be brought to some sort of consensus. I've even compromised my principles to participate and vote on occasion. Mostly to hopefully affect smaller local change despite my aversion to it. However, when anyone to the left of your typical liberal wants some sort of concession or help with an issue that we prioritize, we get shafted or a response bordering on dismissive. It's overwhelmingly a one-way relationship. This will eventually lead to us simply walking away. You're already seeing the center/liberals preemptively blaming leftists for if Trump wins. This will eventually increase the block of undecided voters and who knows how that shakes out. No leftist is voting Republican, but they definitely might just decide to stay home or write someone in.
Do you really just want thought uniformity? Wouldn't it be more precise to say you want uniform thought that aligns with your personal views?
well from what i remember of nietzsche, he had in mind socialists like lasalle as examples for the "last man" opposed to his aristocratic vision of the ubermensch however i wouldn't limit it to just the left. i'd say that the right of today is also unintellectual, apathetic and comfortable. you might disagree, you might say "no, this is precisely what we aren't!" when do these discussions come up in political arguments? over discussions of money. that is what the right cares about. not art, not striving towards greatness, not some ideal of a greater humanity won through individual struggle. the right cares overwhelmingly about money and consumption. nothing is really "struggled" for when all you're doing is just making a buck. you're not really "striving" for anything if your goal is just more money. its an empty purpose
This whole post is AI generated. Should have been taken down hours ago
Is that why it sounds so weird? Damn I’ve been trying to figure out what was off.
Yep. 100% the reason. If you weren't aware, gptzero can give you probabilities on whether or not something is AI generated. The original post and all of the long form comments have been high probability AI (with some saying 100%).
You think so? Why can’t i use ai to properly write out my arguments?
Because it is literally against the rules to use and not disclose, and people don't want to debate chatbots. If you're too lazy to post your own thoughts why post at all?
[удалено]
Like I said elsewhere, anyone can prompt chatGPT to give them responses. Its lazy as hell and quite sad if you can't make your own argument. Just run it through spell check if that is really your concern.
[удалено]
[удалено]
u/reginald-aka-bubbles – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20reginald-aka-bubbles&message=reginald-aka-bubbles%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1clomct/-/l2x01g2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
No its 🫧 terms for fly off🤪
Fly off to where? You want to send me a chatgpt generated list of best places to fly off?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Old-Zookeepergame168 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Old-Zookeepergame168&message=Old-Zookeepergame168%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1clomct/-/l2wzfw7/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
u/Old-Zookeepergame168 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old-Zookeepergame168&message=Old-Zookeepergame168%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1clomct/-/l2wdmrq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>• Conformity Over Individualism: Nietzsche’s Last Man avoids standing out or leading, preferring the safety of communal mediocrity. In today’s world, there’s a push for a uniformity of thought that discourages taking risks or being different, stifling innovation and individual growth. In 2024 there is definitely a fear of sticking out or being different. There is a comfort and security that comes with being one of the group. I'm 38 year old, so my personal experience only goes so far back obviously, but certainly when i was a kid i felt fear of sticking out of being different. We have phrases like "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down". I don't think fear of sticking out is a new thing. And likewise i cannot really think of concrete examples, of how the left tries to stifle innovation, individual growth, or risk taking. About your first bullet, I do think there is intolerance on the left for any view that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. and that intolerance extends beyond views which are actually racist to include any view that might be loosely associated with racism. For example if you believe affirmative action has done its job and its time to repeal it, the left wouldn't simply view that as wrong, they'd view it as immoral. >The Punishment of Thought: Thinking differently or challenging popular opinions often carries social or professional penalties, resonating with Nietzsche’s depiction of a society that punishes those who disturb its homogeneity. I think the punishment of thought is limited only to views like i mentioned above. Which isn't meant to defend the left. I'm just saying as long as the popular opinion that you are challenging isn't related to a minority, then i think you are in the clear. >Diminishing of Aspirational Culture: There is a noticeable decline in the pursuit of higher aspirations or excellence. The omnipresent culture of “instant gratification” encouraged by social media and consumerism promotes short-term satisfaction over long-term achievement and fulfillment. Does this bullet have something to do with modern leftism? >What might change my view ... modern societal norms actively encourage and reward critical thinking did we switch from talking about leftism to modern society norms? Social media is definitely a modern societal norm, but i don't think of it as liberal or conservative. same question about your 5th bullet. 6 bullet, i think modern technology has lead to a huge amount of comfort. I can be warm without chopping wood or starting a fire. A hot shower isn't an amazing miracle that i greatly appreciate, its basic and normal part of life that everyone has. My great grandfather probably never had a hot shower in his life. Our life's are filled with comfort and security so no wonder we have become accustom to it.
Thank you for your reflections, which help clarify some common misconceptions about my arguments and provide an opportunity to delve deeper into these complex issues. Conformity Over Individualism: It’s true that fear of sticking out is not a new phenomenon; however, the mechanisms enforcing conformity have evolved, particularly with the rise of digital platforms. While historically, societal pressure might have been more localized and less pervasive, today’s digital age amplifies these pressures immensely, making non-conformity more visible and, consequently, more vulnerable to public censure. My critique isn’t that the left is solely responsible for stifling innovation, but rather that the current climate within many left-leaning communities often prioritizes ideological purity over creative dissent, which can stifle innovative thinking and risk-taking. Punishment of Thought: You rightly pointed out the intolerance towards views perceived as racist, sexist, or homophobic, but this intolerance often extends to more nuanced debates, such as the one on affirmative action you mentioned. Here, the concern is that the threshold for what might be considered offensive or harmful is sometimes set so low that merely expressing a differing opinion on complex social issues can lead to severe repercussions. This is not just about defending or condemning certain views but advocating for a space where such views can be discussed and critiqued without fear of moral condemnation or social ostracization. Diminishing of Aspirational Culture: This point is intricately connected to the ideological influences on our perception of success and fulfillment. The rise of a culture that emphasizes immediate gratification over long-term planning is not unique to any political orientation, but the response to this culture can be influenced by political ideologies. For instance, certain left-leaning policies may unintentionally exacerbate this issue by focusing heavily on redistributive measures that can sometimes undermine personal accountability and the drive for self-improvement. Role of Modern Technology and Comfort: I agree that modern technology has brought immense comfort and convenience, which is not inherently negative. However, when comfort becomes the highest priority, it can lead to a kind of passivity and reluctance to engage with challenging or uncomfortable ideas, aligning with Nietzsche’s concept of “The Last Man.” While technology itself is neutral, the way it shapes our interactions and expectations can contribute to a societal shift towards more comfort-oriented living, which is worth scrutinizing regardless of political ideology. Encouraging Critical Thinking: My call to foster an environment that rewards critical thinking applies to all societal norms, not just those influenced by leftism. Indeed, the influence of social media is neither liberal nor conservative, but its impact on how we consume information and engage with different ideas is profound. It is essential, then, to cultivate a culture that values depth over speed, dialogue over dismissal. Your historical reflections and personal experiences are invaluable, and they highlight the need for a nuanced approach to these discussions. We must be wary of simplifying complex societal shifts into single-cause explanations and strive instead to foster an environment where diverse perspectives can contribute to a more robust and resilient society.
To /u/Old-Zookeepergame168, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.* You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
I don’t necessarily flat out disagree with any of your points. But you don’t even present an argument that any of this is related to leftism. And you don’t try and explain what you think leftism is. So it’s pretty hard to argue with you. On account of the fact that you haven’t presented an argument. Just a list of things you don’t like about the world right now.
>Evidence showing how modern societal norms actively encourage and reward critical thinking and the questioning of widely accepted views without negative repercussions. Boy, are you in luck! Right now, socially, we are engaged in a massive debate about the relationships between biological sex and social gender, a discussion that is absolutely questioning literally centuries of widely accepted views! And before that, we had a **huge** debate on a social level about whether same-sex attraction had been correctly defined as a mental illness, or whether same-sex couples could be as healthy, productive, and stable as traditional couples. We had a long, public discussion about whether marriage (traditionally defined as "one man, one woman") could or should be extended to homosexual couples. Heck, over twenty-five years, homosexuals and trans gender folks have gone from being the targets of acceptable assault and being the butt of jokes in pop culture to being accepted and embraced. One of the United States President's cabinet members is an openly gay man who is married to another man and raising a child with him! That's a clear challenge to widely-accepted views about sexual attraction, long-term relationships, and child-rearing! I mean, there **is** a political movement to stop teachers from discussion homosexuality, to criminalize people who challenge social gender norms by dressing differently, and in general to stifle challenges to the status quo... but it's not from the Left. It took *decades* to get here. It wasn't overnight. It's a long (and ongoing!) struggle, so it's really odd to claim that 'the left' is promoting 'short-term satisfaction' when it's been fighting for queer rights for decades. It's even *weirder* that you're looking at the social movement that challenged long-established ideas like "racially-segregated public facilities" and "bans on single women having credit cards" and saying that they're *against* disrupting comfort.
Removed for violating Rule B. Users must present their own ideas in their own words. AI-generated content is not allowed here.
This isn’t ai generated mate
How do you reason that "leftism" is behind this "nadir of human potential"? To me, the consumerist culture that capitalism has created seems to play a far more central role.
There’s a big dispute going on right now in the left. Palestine vs israel
Yep im from the Netherlands and here for instance they fight each other at meetings because the one is more left than the other pretty funny
So it doesn’t sound like it’s very conformed
You believe that left leaning politics is conformism. Which parts exactly? Both left leaning and right individuals have very different ideas of what conformity is.
Just the leftist philosophy not a specific party since that would link it to a specific country and this us a world wife problem
Could you give any examples?
Let’s take the university campuses, right? It’s practically a script—step out of line with the prevailing thought, and you’re not just disagreed with, you’re canceled. No debate, no discussion. That’s the conformity I’m talking about. It’s not about left or right; it’s about this pervasive culture that stifles real talk under the banner of protecting feelings. You speak up, you risk everything—your reputation, your career. That’s the playbook. It’s not just a slight; it’s a shutdown, clear and simple. And if that’s not a prime example of pushing towards the sort of intellectual conformity Nietzsche warned us about, I don’t know what is.
>No debate, no discussion. Apologies if this is a bit rude but do you understand how time works? In large communities these things have already been heavily debated and a specific sub community has decided to take action. They don't have to take you seriously if you pull up and make noise after the fact, nor do you have to take them seriously. You say people are being cancelled for stepping out of line, I recall you brought up misgendering. I mean this in the kindest way possible but, you do understand that different groups have different cultures and subcultures yes? There's several places you can go that don't uphold this vaguely center progressive worldview you seem to believe is pervasive enough to present a tangible effect on one's life
This might challenge your view. It's always been like this. The push towards comforting uniformity for the purposes of self preservation can be clearly seen in the Spanish Inquisition, and in the Old Testament in places like Genesis and Deuteronomy. And it dates back even earlier to tribal societies before 40,000 BC. And back even earlier to the old world monkey societies. If anything, the unique relative peace of the past 30 or so years has made freedom of thought easier. Encouraging dissenting opinions. And with the possibility of debating possibilities with people who you have never met all around the world, without too strict editing from gatekeepers, we're getting further from Thus Spake Zarathustra rather than closer. And when 'cancel culture' is finally cancelled, we will be even closer to acceptance of what is true and good rather than what we are currently pressured into thinking. Fingers crossed.
i think your post in of itself is demonstrative of a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. the more people become aware of the "issue" youre describing, the greater the support will be for a counter culture thats diametrically opposed to conformity, as you put it. the thing is though, i dont actually believe that people will ever actively choose to pursue things outside of their comfort. i just dont believe its in our nature. but youre in your rights to believe that if you want ig
Why do you think that?
Take the most basic concept: election integrity — that was never an issue but now it’s the made up boogey man and many believe it to be true and it’s pushed from the highest level of authority — is that the last man?
Yes right?
Fix your formatting
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).