got.daim
bio.site/0w0
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2024
- Posts
- 9,114
- Reputation
- 10,576
The best definition of left vs right is that the further left you go the more you are in favor of egalitarianism while the rightwing politics is in favour of a hierarchical society. This fits with how people untuitively classify things as right vs left unlike some alternative definitions.
The left currently control most institutions of power in the west including most of media and most corporations. They have largely gotten their wish about most issues and we have to ask ourself if this really has been some great thing.
Are people actually happy living under leftwing governments or are we all stuck in mediocracy with no real opportunity to achieve real greatness?
About "equity"
Leftwingers are in favor of more equality of outcome or "equity" and this is their main focus. The only easy way to achieve this is of course to keep people down, preventing people from excelling in society
0. Democracy (egalitarian governance) except for people under 18 which will be screwed over by this.
1. Heavy government control over healthcare where people are not allowed to make their own decisions, instead the government will control that such as forcing people to get vaccinated or forcing people to get treated for supposed mental illnesses. If people were allowed to make their own decisions some people would make smarter decisions than others which would lead to unequal outcomes.
2. Control the educational system and force everyone to go through the same system (holding back gifted students).
3. High taxes on the rich (or outright socialization of the entire economy)
4. Give a lot of welfare supposedly to help the poor.
5. Give a lot of aid to other poorer nations
6. Opposition to war of conquest (war can still be fought but not for the benefit of your own country).
7. Racial eguity (such as discriminating against people for being white).
8. Gender identity politics where gender is reduced to a mere identity, why then transition if you can just identity as your desired gender?
As we in order to achieve equity we need to have a very large government that is focused on enforcing this equity, this will take priority over things like your military, building a strong military and achieving fertility above replacement.
Why democracy is doomed
Democracy can never achieve the level of effectiveness and stability that is possible with pure elite rule (I will make a thread about this), pushing for democracy might work for a while but eventually a more effective method of organizing society will end up dominating the planet.
Democratic countries will be more or less forced to move in an authoritarian direction in order to survive, when that is done leftwingers will of course complain even though it's clearly the right thing to do:
https://www.leftvoice.org/president-zelenskyy-bans-opposition-parties-in-ukraine/
Because democracy is also lower in stability than what you can get with authoritarianism even a global democracy (that doesn't face outside competition) will still collapse due to internal problems (which did happen to all ancient democracies that weren't conquered).
Democracy in general lead to mediocracy and egalitarianism. Peoples rights will not be very secure in a democracy since there really isn't much reason to care about the rights of people who wouldn't vote for you in the first place.
About government control over healthcare
The left is naturally opposed to people making their own medical decisions since then some people will do better than others (many will fall victim to quacks while others get early access to effective treatments) that will result in very unequal outcomes which the left view as very bad.
Instead the left want us to democratically decide what treatments people get and this can of course also be involuntary (you being forced to take a treatment due to 51% thinking it was a good idea).
Regulators are there to please politicians and lobbyists, it's not actually in their own best interest to follow enforce actual evidence-based medicine. Politicians are mostly interested in pleasing their voters and donors and can absolutely not be trusted with any medical decision whatsoever.
If someone is democratically elected or appointed by people that are then clearly they cannot be trusted any more than you can trust your neighbor with medical advice.
People who are not democratically elected instead have their own special interests which will conflict with your interests as a potential patient.
The interests of doctors does not align with the interests of their potential patients, a doctor does not actually make money from people being healthy, they make money when people are sick. They have a vested interest in people pursuing their treatment even if these treatments are harmful to their patients.
Most medical treatments are not based on good evidence https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27032875/
Harmful puberty blockers were given to children for decades but didn't come under scrutiny until they started being used widely for trans children (who don't need them and don't benefit from them).
Instead of criticizing these harmful drugs most people who at least claims to be there to support trans people defended the usage of these drugs that harm trans children while provided zero real benefits for them (in addition to all the damage done to cis children).
In most countries you are not the one paying for the treatment so you are not even the customer, therefore there isn't any real incentive for the doctor to actually do what's best for you, instead doctors will be incentives to please regulators and politicians.
Of course government control over healthcare hasn't worked out too well for trans people with many people having to order hormones online (I will make a thread on this in the future), Many trans spaces actually avoid even discussing that for various reasons (it's a sensitive/controversial topic). This is just one of many example of leftwing politics harming people they claim to support.
The left-liberal alliance pushed "my body, my choice" really hard with regard to abortion while at the same time pushing really hard to force people to get vaccinated against their will (especially with regard to covid). It is worth noting that these 2 are not equivalent, it's a lot easier to defend banning abortion (the government already regulates which medical intervention that are allowed). With forced vaccinations people are actively forced to get one treatment, not just prevented from getting one they want.
The left generally are in favor of or at least ok with forced treatments when it's supposedely "for their own good" and this is the also the logical conclusion of the equity goal.
Leftwing academia
Leftwingers have managed to largely gain control over the higher educational system and we are seeing some uglh results from this now. We are seeing leftwing academia push for various nonsense not actually supported by evidence.
Unsurprisingly with leftwingers in power the actual productive output from academia has drastically fallen. Instead of things like the theory of relativity we get queer theory (which is basically just someone said/wrote this). Real empiricism (where you actually test your theories) is opposed since then you cannot push nonsense as easily.
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/8ID3N
https://archive.ph/H8jFH
Tax-cuts on the rich helps the economy
It's logical that lowering the taxes on the ones actually responsible for real economic growth will be helpful in terms of growing the real economy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268002001040
There is no shortage of poor countries that have many people working hard without earning much money, you need to actually organize the work into becoming productive or we will end up with a very inefficient economy.
Income taxation is harmful for the economy in general
Abortion
This is actually a rare case of the position derived from the equity goal aligning surprisingly well with what the correct policy is.
We should of course force privileged females to give birth while we let the poor have abortion freely. To make it really equal we should force privileged teen girls to become mothers*
But of course people on the political left are not in favor of these things. Instead the left-liberal alliance advocate for free abortion such as letting a female abort her child even though the biological father wanted that child and the fetus was healthy.
A strong case can be made for not allowing abortion of someone else is willing to raise the child (such as the government wanting to raise people to become good soldiers for the state). This is generally the correct policy when there isn't some significant medical issue such as down syndrome.
* This is actually not the best policy, it's better to force a small minority (such as 5%) of females into forced breeding and leave the rest alone, that's more effective than trying to force baby quotas on most females or something like that.
How gender identity politics (nonsense) harms trans people
Gender identity politics is focused on identity (that there isn't any objective test for) rather than the biological characteristics of your body.
Gender identity politics is often used against trans individuals, it is claimed that males will pretend to be transgender to get access to female spaces, this is of course extremely rare but it's still an effective scare tactic.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-transgender-bathroom-crime_n_5b96c5b0e4b0511db3e52825
https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z
I do not think you should try to get accept to female spaces like shower rooms if you still pass as a male. It's actually very common for trans individuals to start of buymoding and delay social transition until they pass better as female.
One potential issue with downplaying the importance of biological characteristics such as ability to breastfeed is that then it will be more difficult to push for early medical transition, then society can easier get away with not allowing teens to transition "you can just identify as female, you do not need to transition".
It is a fact that the later you start your transition the more you will end up being different from the average cis female, hip bones fuse at age 25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_bone
Hopefully in the future you will be able to get working ovaries and womb as a trans female so you will be able to get pregnant and give birth just like most cis females, development in that area would also help a lot of currently infertile cis females.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/live-birth-dead-donor-definition-motherhood-transplants-pregnancy
Of course having strict requirements for womanhood would also exclude a lot of cis females, this is not a hypothetical problem, both men and woman (cis) are subjected to gender norms where deviating from that will cause social problems.
Intersex people are also affected by these things, often they are surgically mutilated to fit into either gender category and sometimes it turns out the gender that were assigned to them didn't fit them particularly well. Them then being able to just identify as the sex they want to be will not solve the issue of them having been mutilated.
Another group affected by this are the ones that end up detransitioning, i do not think it's appropriate to let these people just change bathrooms because they change their gender identity. detrans females are biologically different from cis females who never started transitioning (as groups).
Self-ID can actually ve useful for circumventing discrimination based on legal sex.
If your state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage self-ID would allow you to go around that.
If there are gender quotas people disingenuously self-identifying as the other sex can allow the most qualified people to get positions instead of picking someone less qualified based on their sex.
In general self-id can be weaponized to push for gender egalitarianism by making legal sex near meaningless, abolishing discrimination based on legal sex isn't always politically viable. Personally i do not believe in egalitarianism and therefore i am sceptical of self-id.
Jijifav wrote:
it is bad. the gender abolitionist, gender identity crowd are lesbians and radfems who are attempting to claw back from trans women the title of “most oppressed body.” they also reject being women out of internalized misogyny and to distance themselves from trans women. if gender is just an identity, than trans women are just males who identify as women, and everything reverts back to genitalia at birth. it’s genius, really
The case against allowing females to transition to male
While there are studies and anectotes indicating that FtM transition has worse outcomes for the individual than MtF transition this is not the main reason for why we should oppose it (because it's still likely beneficial for a lot of people).
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1007/s10508-009-9551-1
We shouldn't let fertile females who are valuable for breeding sterilize themselves under any circumstances.
It's also not in the interest of people who find females attractive to let females for example cut off their breasts for no medical reason (we also shouldn't allow non-medical breast reduction) since then there will be less females with nice breasts to see. More importantly intact breasts are important for breastfeeding and just breast-reduction surgery might make that impossible.
https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/can-i-breastfeed-after-breast-reduction-surgery/
In the case of people with potential male fertility you can usually bank sperm pretty early during puberty to preserve fertility (which should arguably be mandatory for people under 25) and early MTF transition can actually create hot females desired by society so it should arguably be encourage/mandatory in some cases.
Females are the reproductive bottleneck. In terms of just genetics less than 2% of the male population are actually needed for reproduction, there are potential social benefits with having more males than that reproduce but there is a lot of uncertainty regarding this. A child might actually be better of raised in a polygamous family since then a more suitable male will be the biological father and have custody (even if he has less time for each child).
Failing to reproduce
While leftwingers are doing great in terms of having control over media and education their issue is that they are not actually reproducing much themselves, instead they have to indocrinate other kids with their nonsense which has caused a great backlack in the US due to the CRT nonsense pushed in schools (while not explicitly teaching it).
https://www.aei.org/articles/the-conservative-fertility-advantage/
Transgender adolescent very rarely pursue fertility preservation in large because they do not want children in the first place
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30065-4/fulltext
Besides the backlash from parents a great problem for left-wingers is that political ideology is to a very large extent genetic.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300553
About modern conservatism
While many of these do oppose the new changes liberals push for they have generally accepted the leftwing ideology. Here are some things republicans are generally in favor of
0. High AoC (16 in most red states) making it harder for teen girls to get pregnant with a good male partner.
1. Medicare providing the old (generally the least important members of society) with free healthcare as the young are forced into obamacare.
2. Not expanding the borders
3. Giving most people the right to vote (conservatives often appeal to popularity while pushing for anti-trans legislation, etc).
4. Egalitarian gun laws (more or less letting everyone be armed instead of restricting it to the elite).
5. Not forcing females to make babies (they are only against abortion for religious reasons, they are fine with females not having sex).
6. No real territorial expansion.
7. Women's sports (except trans people are excluded from it).
This is why Trump got elected, people are increasingly realizing that the republican party didn't really offer anything besides slighly lower taxes so they voted for a con-man pretending to be radical (Trump ended up largely preserving the status quo with some exceptions).
Trusting institutions
Generally leftwingers are highly trusting of institutions like the CDC and FDA while conservatives are overly trusting of institutions like the supreme court. Leftwingers do not want to see how various institutions have conflicts of interests where they are incentivized to do things that are detrimental for the society as a whole unless they are properly policed.
Both leftwingers and conservatives fail to see the necessity of concentrating government power to a single body. Instead both the left and the right like having multiple semi-independent branches of government (courts, congress, executive, etc) and they merely disagree on who should control these various branches.
Many leftwingers died after listening to the government advice to use useless cloth masks instead of FFP3 (Might make a thread about this in the future)
Almost all of the left trusted the advice to take mRNA vaccines against covid even though none of these were able to beat placebo in any randomized controlled trial in terms of adverse events (which included covid-19 complications)
Woke capitalism vs traditional socialism
Increasingly corporations have started to embrace identity politics in large to appeal to these demographics (getting LGBT people and their costumers on board).
The issue more orthodox marxists had was that capitalism simply works too well relative to the alternatives more or less forcing the left to accept capitalism (even though they don't really like it).
Of course the ones pushing for traditional socialism have not given up but they are really not doing too well right now.
Of course the left will still keep fighting for more wealth redistribution but it's unlikely they will be able to get rid of the capitalist system itself any time soon (unclear how many of them even want that).
Why workers co-ops is a terrible idea
The issue with worker co-ops is that the ones building the company will not get proper ownership of it. Instead you only get the profit from the period you worked there and thus there would be a perverse incentive to prioritize short-term profits since once you leave it doesn't matter what happens to the company.
There is nothing wrong with workers owning stock in the company, it's actually a good thing since humans generally want to belong to something bigger and if the employees own stock they will get a share of the profit and thus be more motivated to work hard. It's especially important that executives own stock.
Facebook stock ownership was initially limited to people who actually worked for the company and arguably this helped making facebook a success. The people who helped build the company actually got the fruits of their labour.
https://www.businessinsider.com/first-20-facebook-employees-where-are-they-working-now-2017
We should introduce a system where shareholders of a company they work for get taxed less and allow people to get paid in stock and have it not be taxed until they sell (dividents will be taxed via the normal capital gains rate).
The case for territorial expansionism
In the west there is basically zero appetite for territorial gains. In europe you can just travel to some other European country without being subjected to any check at the border, you might not even notice any border. In the US the extreme right is mostly fighting against immigration and LGBT rights while ignoring the need for territorial expansion.
When you have full democracy you cannot expand your borders without also adding people allowed to vote in elections unless you resort to genocide or forced relocation.
With elite rule or autocracy you do however have the option to expand your political control without having to reorientate your politics to please all the new voters you got.
Area you annex can be used as a buffer against hostile states. Controlling area can also have other significant military utilities such as allowing for military bases (without needing approval from some other country) and creating a larger area to choose from when someone tries to nuke you. You also get more room to retreat in the case the war is currently going badly.
Gaining control over more people potentially allow for more government revenue via taxation and more/better soldiers.
Gaining control over more agricultural land gives you more potential control over food production in the case of an emergency. A hostile countries may stop the export of food in an attempt to starve your population.
Gaining control over territory gives potentially gives you control over more natural resources such as oil and rare-earth minerals.
The more areas you take control over the less potentially hostile areas will remain. By conquering the entire planet you can secure a lasting peace eliminating the need for significant military spending and dangerous conflicts. You will no longer have to worry about billions of people dying in a nuclear war, you will not have to be powerless as civilians are bombed to death.
There are dangers with societal competition, societies will be pushed towards recklessness in order to be able to compete. It can be recklessness with weapons (such as arming nazis to fight in some war) but it can also be recklessness with regard to things like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.
Leftwing echo-chambers
Something you may have noticed is that leftwing spaces are typically heavily censored and often they rarely restrict themselves to just banning people who violated their official rules.
To understand why they need censorship you just have to look at the asch conformity experiment
Just having one dissenting voice can cause dissent to spread since it's fairly obvious that it is nonsense.
Example of nonsense "you are a women if you identity as a woman".
About leftwing debaters
Of course people like Vaush are not good faith debaters, instead they weaponize rhetoric and try to dominate the conversation in any way they can.
It's also very likely that they intentionally avoid debating someone they would lose to.
Dysgenic breeding in left/liberal societies
A general issue in western societies have been dysgenic breeding.
https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.intell.2010.01.003
The university system where intelligent females are pushed into largely useless (for society) collage education is largely to blame for the dysgenic breeding among females.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/0160-2896(89)90015-9
Because of things like generous welfare and the government trying to prevent dumb parents from killing their children there really isn't any significant factor counteracting the fact that low IQ people have more babies. This will not end well.
Of course killing/sterilizing people (like Sweden did earlier) is not the solution since fertility is now below replacement. We need selective forced breeding applied at least to a minority of the female population (such as 5%).
Where is the opposition?
Something you may have noticed is that it's very hard to find good people opposing leftwing ideas on youtube.
You will have a really hard time finding someone advocating for territorial expansionism or advocating for teen girls to be impregnated (instead of focusing on their education).
Examples of organizations in favor of military expansionism is the national alliance and imperium europa, both of these are arguably a continuation of the national socialism hitler implemented.
https://imperium-europa.org/index.html
https://natall.com/about/what-is-the-national-alliance/
Both of these organizations have failed to gain widespread traction and are also significantly behind my vintologi writings intellectually.
In terms of political success the national alliance is against electoral politics which is the wrong stance (democracy is a dumb system but you should still use it to your advantage if you can). National alliance seem largely dead now and arguably they are no longer relevant.
Imperium Europa actually got 3.17% in the 2019 EU election which is actually a pretty good result given how radical they are. It can be worthwhile to start a similar party in some other european party (yes i might try to do it at some point).
As far as imperialist movements that are not into race-politics: i actually do not know of any besides the movement i have, surely there must be such movements but you never hear about it and they do not seem particularly strong.
The real origin of leftwin ideology
It comes down to primitive feelings about wanting things to be equal. Leftwingers behave like this dumb monkeys:
Comparing to these monkey-experiments obviously isn't fair since there they actually did the exact same work while leftwingers generally whine about income inequality in general (even when people do different things).
Issues with the "marginal utility" argument for high taxes on the wealthy
People on the left generally pushes for inome/wealth equalization with the argument that the poor needs money more. There are however multiple issues with this line of reasoning
0. The taxes will discourage people from earning money when said income would be subjected to extortionate taxation.
1. People like business leaders are among the most important members of society, thus their well-being is more important than the well-being of the average citizen.
2. Judging by the willingness of people to participate in lotteries it very much seems like people very much value the chance of escaping their mediocre existence.
3. Giving people a chance to work towards a better future for themselves and their children is an important part in providing people with good life experiences.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/new-wharton-study-people-are-happier-when-they-earn-more-money.html
A note on 0 is that while this is a mathametical reality their is uncertainty with regard to at which point taxation will no longer lead to higher income. This will likely depend on whether or not you look long-term of short-term.
Having people live good life being rich and have other people see that will be useful in encouraging people to work harder so the government will earn more money towards things like the military.
A note on 1 is that in general the leaders of the country are the most important members providing they do a good job. You actually want these leaders to prioritize their own well-being (especially reproductive success) over people like some homeless drug addict.
One reason for the marginal utility of wealth diminishing is that we do not allow people to for example buy girls to have fun with as sex/breeding slaves. We have laws against buying organs, etc. The left of course is generally against letting rich people use their money for their own benefit (such as being the only one able to access some beneficial medical treatment) due to "equity" being their main/only moral goal.
debunking: sex and gender are 2 separate things
One popular modern notion is to separate sex from gender where sex might refer to chromosomes while gender refers to something that is supposedely a social construct.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21
This whole thing falls apart once you consider that behavior will to a large extent depend on the brain which in turn will be influenced in large part by genetics. The brain can also be changed by hormone therapy.
HRT affect the entire body (including the brain) it goes a lot deeper than merely cosmetic changes.
Even shortly after birth differences in behavior between males and females can be observed in terms of their behavior (on average)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/icd.1986
Countries with more equal opportunity for genders tend to have larger differences between males and females in terms of what professions they pursue.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...sonality-are-bigger-in-egalitarian-countries/
The personality difference in personality is also larger in equal countries
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30206941/
The difference in clothing
Because females have different bodies it makes sense for them to also have different clothes. This shouldn't be hard to understand and it further illustrate how you cannot separate gender from sex. the 2 are linked.
Furthermore historically males have often had to do hard work females wasn't expected to do and because of that it makes sense that males have clothes more optimized for hard work. Biologically males working to support females make sense since females will have to go through the pregnancy and breastfeed in addition to the fact that females are the reproductive bottleneck which forces males to compete for them, acquiring resources is one method to attract females.
Examples of constructs that are not due to biology
Gender markers (such as ID, gender colors, etc) are often socially constructed for utility. These markers does however indicate other differences between the sexes/genders that are not socially constructed.
But even things like how we count numbers might be partly biological (we have 10 fingers and we also use base 10).
Why anarcho-communism is nonsense
Anarcho-communism is an utopian fantasy pushed by some leftwing grifters/midwits. You have to be really dumb/naieve to buy into that nonsense.
You are not getting to some communist utopia in a stateless society. what you do get in a stateless society is tribes/gangs forming to kill males and rape females.
Socialist policies require a state for enforcement. People are not going to give up 80% of their wealth voluntarily (at least not many).
"social democracy" has failed europe
While european countries are nice in some ways we have failed both when it comes to economics and when it comes to building a strong defense.
https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than_europe
EU: 200 nukes
UK: 225 nukes
US: 3750 nukes
Debunking "abortion should be legal because "my body my choice""
There are 2 aspects of bodily autonomy
0. The right to refuse a medical treatment
1. The right to access a medical treatment
In most countries none of these are applies universally. The left recently tried to force covid vaccines on people and people can also be subjected to forced treatment due to being viewed as mentally ill. People can also legally be reduced to property via the guardianship legislation.
In the case of abortion it's people wanting to access a medical treatment and there are a lot of medical treatments you cannot freely access.
In reality when there is a strong state the state always has the ability to control peoples bodies including with regard to medical treatment. You simply have to hope/trust that your government isn't going to screw you over too badly or flee to an area not yet controlled by the government (which isn't possible once a single government control the entire planet). There is no way to guarantee bodily autonomy to the subjects of a state.
It's not in the interest of most men to support the left.
There are some leftwing grifters who will pretend to care about mens issues but when you then try to analyze what they actually are proposing it's not actually any help, it's the exact opposite of that.
The left will claim that you help men by combating what they call "toxic masculinity" even though traditionally masculine men are happier and live better lives on average.
eviemagazine.com/post/study-shows-very-masculine-men-are-more-likely-to-be-happy-and-married
The left isn't willing to do much if anything to actually oppose feminism. They are wine with men having their children killed in the womb and females not getting pregnant in the first place resulting in sub-replacement fertility. The left also support anti-male legislation regarding sex such as high AoC laws and "affirmative consent" making it increasingly legally dangerous for males to be sexually active.
Debunking: "patriarchy is to blame for women getting custody"
When we had real patriarchy males got custody over the children after divorce. Fathers had the authority and respoinsibility to take care of their children after birth. Sure tradcucks want females to be the ones raising children but they are all feminists so it makes perfect sense.
How lefties/liberals are failing trans people
A lot of lefties and liberals do not even believe in things like gender roles in the first place. This is why they like to instead focus on "gender identity". They are more interested in deconstructing gender norms than to actually help trans people.
It is also worth noting that the US doesn't have a strong traditionally leftwing political faction, instead we have a mix between conservatism and nationalism on one side (republicans) and a mix between liberalism and leftwing ideology on the other side (democrats) with both sides supporting capitalism.
Democracy and government control over healthcare
The left wants to let everyone living in an area vote allowing transphobic legislation to be passed such as restricting access to HRT. Sweden actually restricted HRT access when they had a centre-left government further illustrating how we cannot trust the left here.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/...acks-on-gender-affirming-treatments-for-teens
The left typicaly believes that we can trust government officials when it comes to medical decisions, they have an irrational faith in democracy.
In reality government control over healthcare in democracies cannot work out particularly great since the regulators will have to please politicians who in turn have to please their voters and donors. Thus we cannot expect a government to make better decisions on medical matters than the average voter.
Leftwing trans spaces tend to be afraid of talking about DIY HRT since that is a capitalist solution that often work just fine, there are some areas (such as Canada) where that is hard to do unfortunately.
One big problem is that the left believes in psychiatry and therapists so they think we should rely on them when it comes to deciding who should transition. Liberals instead tend to be more supporting of "informed consent".
Thanks to having a more private healthcare system the US is able to deliver transgender healtcare to trans people (without relying on the DIY route) while Europe is worse than red states in that regard (due to american courts overruling the majority will of the mostly ignorant voters).
It's important to recognize that democracy isn't a legitimate way to govern a country. We need authoritarianism.
Puberty blockers
A lot of people assumed that they were safe because they were often prescribed against early puberty. Turns out they were not actually safe in the case of "precocious puberty" but they got prescribed anyway and then people assumed it would be safe for trans people. Conservatives only started criticizing puberty blockers when they started being given to trans children.
The better option is to give full HRT after banking sperm.
Refusal to do proper trials
For some reason leftwing/liberal government refuse to do proper randomized controlled trials on transgender medicine. This can be comparing monotherapy (estradiol injections) with estradiol pills + cyproterone acatate, it's not just about proving that HRT is beneficial.
This is the natural result of an ideology that focuses on the mind (gender identity) instead of physical sex-characteristics of a body.
Solving a problem requires recognizing that it exist in the first place and this is why it's counter productive to claim "you are a woman if you identity as such" since that amounts to denying real world issues trans people face such as being unable to get pregnant as a trans female. We also have to recognize that having a masculine face when trying to present as a women is problematic.
How liberals are failing
The main issue with liberals is that they tend to be unwilling to use authoritarianism to defeat conservatives, here the left is actually better since the left tend to be more vicious.
Sam Seder recently got destroyed
He recently did a 1 vs 20 debate and while he did fine for the most part he ended up eventually exposing himself for not being able to explain what he based his moral/political views on. He moved the goalpost multiple times.
First he claimed it was about harm reduction.
Then he shifted towards "we as a society has decided certain things via democracy".
Then he said he would not be fine with society deciding democratically to take away rights from trans people.
He made the argument "they were born that way" in an attempt to defend acceptance of homosexuality and then the other guy pointed out that pedophiles are likely born that way too, doesn't mean we should accept it.
Pedophilia is something that ideally should be bred out of the population but if we cannot do that (or if the price would be too high) we should still look at finding a cure for it and if that also isn't possible we end up having to resort to even worse options such as giving pedophiles sex-dolls and animated pornography made to their liking.
Then he shifted towards "it's different if there is 2 consenting adults" and then the other guy pointed out that it could be used to justify incest. The "consenting adults" thing is also bad for 2 other reasons, it applies that "consent" should be needed and it also implies that you would need to be adult first which means waiting years with a very strong sex drive before you can act on your natural biology.
Then there is the issue with leftwing ideology being self defeating and suicidal since it promotes low birth rates among other problems. People like sam seder cannot really defend all those issues so his only option is to constantly be on the offensive to 'win", the same is the case for people like vaush and destiny, they have to 'win' by attacking the person they are debating against since their own ideology being full of flaws and contradictions.
Of course there are plenty of issues with religious fundamentalism too. Religious fundamentalism is not how we build a strong modern society spanning the entire planet, it's backwards and far from ideal in terms of breeding, efficient warfare, expansion of borders, integration of new people into society, etc.
Nicolae Ceaușescu had some success with decree 770 but there were plenty of issues there. Merely trying to restrict access to abortion and contraceptives didn't go far enough it seems.
https://rdrama.net/post/349156/sam-seder-tries-to-pull-a
The left currently control most institutions of power in the west including most of media and most corporations. They have largely gotten their wish about most issues and we have to ask ourself if this really has been some great thing.
Are people actually happy living under leftwing governments or are we all stuck in mediocracy with no real opportunity to achieve real greatness?
About "equity"
Leftwingers are in favor of more equality of outcome or "equity" and this is their main focus. The only easy way to achieve this is of course to keep people down, preventing people from excelling in society
0. Democracy (egalitarian governance) except for people under 18 which will be screwed over by this.
1. Heavy government control over healthcare where people are not allowed to make their own decisions, instead the government will control that such as forcing people to get vaccinated or forcing people to get treated for supposed mental illnesses. If people were allowed to make their own decisions some people would make smarter decisions than others which would lead to unequal outcomes.
2. Control the educational system and force everyone to go through the same system (holding back gifted students).
3. High taxes on the rich (or outright socialization of the entire economy)
4. Give a lot of welfare supposedly to help the poor.
5. Give a lot of aid to other poorer nations
6. Opposition to war of conquest (war can still be fought but not for the benefit of your own country).
7. Racial eguity (such as discriminating against people for being white).
8. Gender identity politics where gender is reduced to a mere identity, why then transition if you can just identity as your desired gender?
As we in order to achieve equity we need to have a very large government that is focused on enforcing this equity, this will take priority over things like your military, building a strong military and achieving fertility above replacement.
Why democracy is doomed
Democracy can never achieve the level of effectiveness and stability that is possible with pure elite rule (I will make a thread about this), pushing for democracy might work for a while but eventually a more effective method of organizing society will end up dominating the planet.
Democratic countries will be more or less forced to move in an authoritarian direction in order to survive, when that is done leftwingers will of course complain even though it's clearly the right thing to do:
https://www.leftvoice.org/president-zelenskyy-bans-opposition-parties-in-ukraine/
Because democracy is also lower in stability than what you can get with authoritarianism even a global democracy (that doesn't face outside competition) will still collapse due to internal problems (which did happen to all ancient democracies that weren't conquered).
Democracy in general lead to mediocracy and egalitarianism. Peoples rights will not be very secure in a democracy since there really isn't much reason to care about the rights of people who wouldn't vote for you in the first place.
About government control over healthcare
The left is naturally opposed to people making their own medical decisions since then some people will do better than others (many will fall victim to quacks while others get early access to effective treatments) that will result in very unequal outcomes which the left view as very bad.
Instead the left want us to democratically decide what treatments people get and this can of course also be involuntary (you being forced to take a treatment due to 51% thinking it was a good idea).
Regulators are there to please politicians and lobbyists, it's not actually in their own best interest to follow enforce actual evidence-based medicine. Politicians are mostly interested in pleasing their voters and donors and can absolutely not be trusted with any medical decision whatsoever.
If someone is democratically elected or appointed by people that are then clearly they cannot be trusted any more than you can trust your neighbor with medical advice.
People who are not democratically elected instead have their own special interests which will conflict with your interests as a potential patient.
The interests of doctors does not align with the interests of their potential patients, a doctor does not actually make money from people being healthy, they make money when people are sick. They have a vested interest in people pursuing their treatment even if these treatments are harmful to their patients.
Most medical treatments are not based on good evidence https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27032875/
Harmful puberty blockers were given to children for decades but didn't come under scrutiny until they started being used widely for trans children (who don't need them and don't benefit from them).
Instead of criticizing these harmful drugs most people who at least claims to be there to support trans people defended the usage of these drugs that harm trans children while provided zero real benefits for them (in addition to all the damage done to cis children).
In most countries you are not the one paying for the treatment so you are not even the customer, therefore there isn't any real incentive for the doctor to actually do what's best for you, instead doctors will be incentives to please regulators and politicians.
Of course government control over healthcare hasn't worked out too well for trans people with many people having to order hormones online (I will make a thread on this in the future), Many trans spaces actually avoid even discussing that for various reasons (it's a sensitive/controversial topic). This is just one of many example of leftwing politics harming people they claim to support.
The left-liberal alliance pushed "my body, my choice" really hard with regard to abortion while at the same time pushing really hard to force people to get vaccinated against their will (especially with regard to covid). It is worth noting that these 2 are not equivalent, it's a lot easier to defend banning abortion (the government already regulates which medical intervention that are allowed). With forced vaccinations people are actively forced to get one treatment, not just prevented from getting one they want.
The left generally are in favor of or at least ok with forced treatments when it's supposedely "for their own good" and this is the also the logical conclusion of the equity goal.
Leftwing academia
Leftwingers have managed to largely gain control over the higher educational system and we are seeing some uglh results from this now. We are seeing leftwing academia push for various nonsense not actually supported by evidence.
Unsurprisingly with leftwingers in power the actual productive output from academia has drastically fallen. Instead of things like the theory of relativity we get queer theory (which is basically just someone said/wrote this). Real empiricism (where you actually test your theories) is opposed since then you cannot push nonsense as easily.
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/8ID3N
https://archive.ph/H8jFH
Tax-cuts on the rich helps the economy
It's logical that lowering the taxes on the ones actually responsible for real economic growth will be helpful in terms of growing the real economy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268002001040
There is no shortage of poor countries that have many people working hard without earning much money, you need to actually organize the work into becoming productive or we will end up with a very inefficient economy.
Income taxation is harmful for the economy in general
https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/
Abortion
This is actually a rare case of the position derived from the equity goal aligning surprisingly well with what the correct policy is.
We should of course force privileged females to give birth while we let the poor have abortion freely. To make it really equal we should force privileged teen girls to become mothers*
But of course people on the political left are not in favor of these things. Instead the left-liberal alliance advocate for free abortion such as letting a female abort her child even though the biological father wanted that child and the fetus was healthy.
A strong case can be made for not allowing abortion of someone else is willing to raise the child (such as the government wanting to raise people to become good soldiers for the state). This is generally the correct policy when there isn't some significant medical issue such as down syndrome.
* This is actually not the best policy, it's better to force a small minority (such as 5%) of females into forced breeding and leave the rest alone, that's more effective than trying to force baby quotas on most females or something like that.
How gender identity politics (nonsense) harms trans people
Gender identity politics is focused on identity (that there isn't any objective test for) rather than the biological characteristics of your body.
Gender identity politics is often used against trans individuals, it is claimed that males will pretend to be transgender to get access to female spaces, this is of course extremely rare but it's still an effective scare tactic.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-transgender-bathroom-crime_n_5b96c5b0e4b0511db3e52825
https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z
I do not think you should try to get accept to female spaces like shower rooms if you still pass as a male. It's actually very common for trans individuals to start of buymoding and delay social transition until they pass better as female.
One potential issue with downplaying the importance of biological characteristics such as ability to breastfeed is that then it will be more difficult to push for early medical transition, then society can easier get away with not allowing teens to transition "you can just identify as female, you do not need to transition".
It is a fact that the later you start your transition the more you will end up being different from the average cis female, hip bones fuse at age 25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_bone
Hopefully in the future you will be able to get working ovaries and womb as a trans female so you will be able to get pregnant and give birth just like most cis females, development in that area would also help a lot of currently infertile cis females.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/live-birth-dead-donor-definition-motherhood-transplants-pregnancy
Of course having strict requirements for womanhood would also exclude a lot of cis females, this is not a hypothetical problem, both men and woman (cis) are subjected to gender norms where deviating from that will cause social problems.
Intersex people are also affected by these things, often they are surgically mutilated to fit into either gender category and sometimes it turns out the gender that were assigned to them didn't fit them particularly well. Them then being able to just identify as the sex they want to be will not solve the issue of them having been mutilated.
Another group affected by this are the ones that end up detransitioning, i do not think it's appropriate to let these people just change bathrooms because they change their gender identity. detrans females are biologically different from cis females who never started transitioning (as groups).
Self-ID can actually ve useful for circumventing discrimination based on legal sex.
If your state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage self-ID would allow you to go around that.
If there are gender quotas people disingenuously self-identifying as the other sex can allow the most qualified people to get positions instead of picking someone less qualified based on their sex.
In general self-id can be weaponized to push for gender egalitarianism by making legal sex near meaningless, abolishing discrimination based on legal sex isn't always politically viable. Personally i do not believe in egalitarianism and therefore i am sceptical of self-id.
Jijifav wrote:
it is bad. the gender abolitionist, gender identity crowd are lesbians and radfems who are attempting to claw back from trans women the title of “most oppressed body.” they also reject being women out of internalized misogyny and to distance themselves from trans women. if gender is just an identity, than trans women are just males who identify as women, and everything reverts back to genitalia at birth. it’s genius, really
The case against allowing females to transition to male
While there are studies and anectotes indicating that FtM transition has worse outcomes for the individual than MtF transition this is not the main reason for why we should oppose it (because it's still likely beneficial for a lot of people).
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1007/s10508-009-9551-1
We shouldn't let fertile females who are valuable for breeding sterilize themselves under any circumstances.
It's also not in the interest of people who find females attractive to let females for example cut off their breasts for no medical reason (we also shouldn't allow non-medical breast reduction) since then there will be less females with nice breasts to see. More importantly intact breasts are important for breastfeeding and just breast-reduction surgery might make that impossible.
https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/can-i-breastfeed-after-breast-reduction-surgery/
In the case of people with potential male fertility you can usually bank sperm pretty early during puberty to preserve fertility (which should arguably be mandatory for people under 25) and early MTF transition can actually create hot females desired by society so it should arguably be encourage/mandatory in some cases.
Females are the reproductive bottleneck. In terms of just genetics less than 2% of the male population are actually needed for reproduction, there are potential social benefits with having more males than that reproduce but there is a lot of uncertainty regarding this. A child might actually be better of raised in a polygamous family since then a more suitable male will be the biological father and have custody (even if he has less time for each child).
Failing to reproduce
While leftwingers are doing great in terms of having control over media and education their issue is that they are not actually reproducing much themselves, instead they have to indocrinate other kids with their nonsense which has caused a great backlack in the US due to the CRT nonsense pushed in schools (while not explicitly teaching it).
https://www.aei.org/articles/the-conservative-fertility-advantage/
Transgender adolescent very rarely pursue fertility preservation in large because they do not want children in the first place
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30065-4/fulltext
Besides the backlash from parents a great problem for left-wingers is that political ideology is to a very large extent genetic.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300553
About modern conservatism
While many of these do oppose the new changes liberals push for they have generally accepted the leftwing ideology. Here are some things republicans are generally in favor of
0. High AoC (16 in most red states) making it harder for teen girls to get pregnant with a good male partner.
1. Medicare providing the old (generally the least important members of society) with free healthcare as the young are forced into obamacare.
2. Not expanding the borders
3. Giving most people the right to vote (conservatives often appeal to popularity while pushing for anti-trans legislation, etc).
4. Egalitarian gun laws (more or less letting everyone be armed instead of restricting it to the elite).
5. Not forcing females to make babies (they are only against abortion for religious reasons, they are fine with females not having sex).
6. No real territorial expansion.
7. Women's sports (except trans people are excluded from it).
This is why Trump got elected, people are increasingly realizing that the republican party didn't really offer anything besides slighly lower taxes so they voted for a con-man pretending to be radical (Trump ended up largely preserving the status quo with some exceptions).
Trusting institutions
Generally leftwingers are highly trusting of institutions like the CDC and FDA while conservatives are overly trusting of institutions like the supreme court. Leftwingers do not want to see how various institutions have conflicts of interests where they are incentivized to do things that are detrimental for the society as a whole unless they are properly policed.
Both leftwingers and conservatives fail to see the necessity of concentrating government power to a single body. Instead both the left and the right like having multiple semi-independent branches of government (courts, congress, executive, etc) and they merely disagree on who should control these various branches.
Many leftwingers died after listening to the government advice to use useless cloth masks instead of FFP3 (Might make a thread about this in the future)
Almost all of the left trusted the advice to take mRNA vaccines against covid even though none of these were able to beat placebo in any randomized controlled trial in terms of adverse events (which included covid-19 complications)
Woke capitalism vs traditional socialism
Increasingly corporations have started to embrace identity politics in large to appeal to these demographics (getting LGBT people and their costumers on board).
The issue more orthodox marxists had was that capitalism simply works too well relative to the alternatives more or less forcing the left to accept capitalism (even though they don't really like it).
Of course the ones pushing for traditional socialism have not given up but they are really not doing too well right now.
Of course the left will still keep fighting for more wealth redistribution but it's unlikely they will be able to get rid of the capitalist system itself any time soon (unclear how many of them even want that).
Why workers co-ops is a terrible idea
The issue with worker co-ops is that the ones building the company will not get proper ownership of it. Instead you only get the profit from the period you worked there and thus there would be a perverse incentive to prioritize short-term profits since once you leave it doesn't matter what happens to the company.
There is nothing wrong with workers owning stock in the company, it's actually a good thing since humans generally want to belong to something bigger and if the employees own stock they will get a share of the profit and thus be more motivated to work hard. It's especially important that executives own stock.
Facebook stock ownership was initially limited to people who actually worked for the company and arguably this helped making facebook a success. The people who helped build the company actually got the fruits of their labour.
https://www.businessinsider.com/first-20-facebook-employees-where-are-they-working-now-2017
We should introduce a system where shareholders of a company they work for get taxed less and allow people to get paid in stock and have it not be taxed until they sell (dividents will be taxed via the normal capital gains rate).
The case for territorial expansionism
In the west there is basically zero appetite for territorial gains. In europe you can just travel to some other European country without being subjected to any check at the border, you might not even notice any border. In the US the extreme right is mostly fighting against immigration and LGBT rights while ignoring the need for territorial expansion.
When you have full democracy you cannot expand your borders without also adding people allowed to vote in elections unless you resort to genocide or forced relocation.
With elite rule or autocracy you do however have the option to expand your political control without having to reorientate your politics to please all the new voters you got.
Area you annex can be used as a buffer against hostile states. Controlling area can also have other significant military utilities such as allowing for military bases (without needing approval from some other country) and creating a larger area to choose from when someone tries to nuke you. You also get more room to retreat in the case the war is currently going badly.
Gaining control over more people potentially allow for more government revenue via taxation and more/better soldiers.
Gaining control over more agricultural land gives you more potential control over food production in the case of an emergency. A hostile countries may stop the export of food in an attempt to starve your population.
Gaining control over territory gives potentially gives you control over more natural resources such as oil and rare-earth minerals.
The more areas you take control over the less potentially hostile areas will remain. By conquering the entire planet you can secure a lasting peace eliminating the need for significant military spending and dangerous conflicts. You will no longer have to worry about billions of people dying in a nuclear war, you will not have to be powerless as civilians are bombed to death.
There are dangers with societal competition, societies will be pushed towards recklessness in order to be able to compete. It can be recklessness with weapons (such as arming nazis to fight in some war) but it can also be recklessness with regard to things like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.
Leftwing echo-chambers
Something you may have noticed is that leftwing spaces are typically heavily censored and often they rarely restrict themselves to just banning people who violated their official rules.
To understand why they need censorship you just have to look at the asch conformity experiment
Just having one dissenting voice can cause dissent to spread since it's fairly obvious that it is nonsense.
Example of nonsense "you are a women if you identity as a woman".
About leftwing debaters
Of course people like Vaush are not good faith debaters, instead they weaponize rhetoric and try to dominate the conversation in any way they can.
It's also very likely that they intentionally avoid debating someone they would lose to.
Dysgenic breeding in left/liberal societies
A general issue in western societies have been dysgenic breeding.
https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.intell.2010.01.003
The university system where intelligent females are pushed into largely useless (for society) collage education is largely to blame for the dysgenic breeding among females.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/0160-2896(89)90015-9
Because of things like generous welfare and the government trying to prevent dumb parents from killing their children there really isn't any significant factor counteracting the fact that low IQ people have more babies. This will not end well.
Of course killing/sterilizing people (like Sweden did earlier) is not the solution since fertility is now below replacement. We need selective forced breeding applied at least to a minority of the female population (such as 5%).
Where is the opposition?
Something you may have noticed is that it's very hard to find good people opposing leftwing ideas on youtube.
You will have a really hard time finding someone advocating for territorial expansionism or advocating for teen girls to be impregnated (instead of focusing on their education).
Examples of organizations in favor of military expansionism is the national alliance and imperium europa, both of these are arguably a continuation of the national socialism hitler implemented.
https://imperium-europa.org/index.html
https://natall.com/about/what-is-the-national-alliance/
Both of these organizations have failed to gain widespread traction and are also significantly behind my vintologi writings intellectually.
In terms of political success the national alliance is against electoral politics which is the wrong stance (democracy is a dumb system but you should still use it to your advantage if you can). National alliance seem largely dead now and arguably they are no longer relevant.
Imperium Europa actually got 3.17% in the 2019 EU election which is actually a pretty good result given how radical they are. It can be worthwhile to start a similar party in some other european party (yes i might try to do it at some point).
As far as imperialist movements that are not into race-politics: i actually do not know of any besides the movement i have, surely there must be such movements but you never hear about it and they do not seem particularly strong.
The real origin of leftwin ideology
It comes down to primitive feelings about wanting things to be equal. Leftwingers behave like this dumb monkeys:
Comparing to these monkey-experiments obviously isn't fair since there they actually did the exact same work while leftwingers generally whine about income inequality in general (even when people do different things).
Issues with the "marginal utility" argument for high taxes on the wealthy
People on the left generally pushes for inome/wealth equalization with the argument that the poor needs money more. There are however multiple issues with this line of reasoning
0. The taxes will discourage people from earning money when said income would be subjected to extortionate taxation.
1. People like business leaders are among the most important members of society, thus their well-being is more important than the well-being of the average citizen.
2. Judging by the willingness of people to participate in lotteries it very much seems like people very much value the chance of escaping their mediocre existence.
3. Giving people a chance to work towards a better future for themselves and their children is an important part in providing people with good life experiences.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/new-wharton-study-people-are-happier-when-they-earn-more-money.html
A note on 0 is that while this is a mathametical reality their is uncertainty with regard to at which point taxation will no longer lead to higher income. This will likely depend on whether or not you look long-term of short-term.
Having people live good life being rich and have other people see that will be useful in encouraging people to work harder so the government will earn more money towards things like the military.
A note on 1 is that in general the leaders of the country are the most important members providing they do a good job. You actually want these leaders to prioritize their own well-being (especially reproductive success) over people like some homeless drug addict.
One reason for the marginal utility of wealth diminishing is that we do not allow people to for example buy girls to have fun with as sex/breeding slaves. We have laws against buying organs, etc. The left of course is generally against letting rich people use their money for their own benefit (such as being the only one able to access some beneficial medical treatment) due to "equity" being their main/only moral goal.
debunking: sex and gender are 2 separate things
One popular modern notion is to separate sex from gender where sex might refer to chromosomes while gender refers to something that is supposedely a social construct.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21
This whole thing falls apart once you consider that behavior will to a large extent depend on the brain which in turn will be influenced in large part by genetics. The brain can also be changed by hormone therapy.
HRT affect the entire body (including the brain) it goes a lot deeper than merely cosmetic changes.
Even shortly after birth differences in behavior between males and females can be observed in terms of their behavior (on average)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/icd.1986
Countries with more equal opportunity for genders tend to have larger differences between males and females in terms of what professions they pursue.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...sonality-are-bigger-in-egalitarian-countries/
The personality difference in personality is also larger in equal countries
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30206941/
The difference in clothing
Because females have different bodies it makes sense for them to also have different clothes. This shouldn't be hard to understand and it further illustrate how you cannot separate gender from sex. the 2 are linked.
Furthermore historically males have often had to do hard work females wasn't expected to do and because of that it makes sense that males have clothes more optimized for hard work. Biologically males working to support females make sense since females will have to go through the pregnancy and breastfeed in addition to the fact that females are the reproductive bottleneck which forces males to compete for them, acquiring resources is one method to attract females.
Examples of constructs that are not due to biology
Gender markers (such as ID, gender colors, etc) are often socially constructed for utility. These markers does however indicate other differences between the sexes/genders that are not socially constructed.
But even things like how we count numbers might be partly biological (we have 10 fingers and we also use base 10).
Why anarcho-communism is nonsense
Anarcho-communism is an utopian fantasy pushed by some leftwing grifters/midwits. You have to be really dumb/naieve to buy into that nonsense.
You are not getting to some communist utopia in a stateless society. what you do get in a stateless society is tribes/gangs forming to kill males and rape females.
Socialist policies require a state for enforcement. People are not going to give up 80% of their wealth voluntarily (at least not many).
"social democracy" has failed europe
While european countries are nice in some ways we have failed both when it comes to economics and when it comes to building a strong defense.
https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than_europe
EU: 200 nukes
UK: 225 nukes
US: 3750 nukes
Debunking "abortion should be legal because "my body my choice""
There are 2 aspects of bodily autonomy
0. The right to refuse a medical treatment
1. The right to access a medical treatment
In most countries none of these are applies universally. The left recently tried to force covid vaccines on people and people can also be subjected to forced treatment due to being viewed as mentally ill. People can also legally be reduced to property via the guardianship legislation.
In the case of abortion it's people wanting to access a medical treatment and there are a lot of medical treatments you cannot freely access.
In reality when there is a strong state the state always has the ability to control peoples bodies including with regard to medical treatment. You simply have to hope/trust that your government isn't going to screw you over too badly or flee to an area not yet controlled by the government (which isn't possible once a single government control the entire planet). There is no way to guarantee bodily autonomy to the subjects of a state.
It's not in the interest of most men to support the left.
There are some leftwing grifters who will pretend to care about mens issues but when you then try to analyze what they actually are proposing it's not actually any help, it's the exact opposite of that.
The left will claim that you help men by combating what they call "toxic masculinity" even though traditionally masculine men are happier and live better lives on average.
eviemagazine.com/post/study-shows-very-masculine-men-are-more-likely-to-be-happy-and-married
The left isn't willing to do much if anything to actually oppose feminism. They are wine with men having their children killed in the womb and females not getting pregnant in the first place resulting in sub-replacement fertility. The left also support anti-male legislation regarding sex such as high AoC laws and "affirmative consent" making it increasingly legally dangerous for males to be sexually active.
Debunking: "patriarchy is to blame for women getting custody"
When we had real patriarchy males got custody over the children after divorce. Fathers had the authority and respoinsibility to take care of their children after birth. Sure tradcucks want females to be the ones raising children but they are all feminists so it makes perfect sense.
unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2019/Gender-equality-and-womens-rights-in-the-context-of-child-custody-and-child-maintenance-en.pdf
How lefties/liberals are failing trans people
A lot of lefties and liberals do not even believe in things like gender roles in the first place. This is why they like to instead focus on "gender identity". They are more interested in deconstructing gender norms than to actually help trans people.
It is also worth noting that the US doesn't have a strong traditionally leftwing political faction, instead we have a mix between conservatism and nationalism on one side (republicans) and a mix between liberalism and leftwing ideology on the other side (democrats) with both sides supporting capitalism.
Democracy and government control over healthcare
The left wants to let everyone living in an area vote allowing transphobic legislation to be passed such as restricting access to HRT. Sweden actually restricted HRT access when they had a centre-left government further illustrating how we cannot trust the left here.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/...acks-on-gender-affirming-treatments-for-teens
The left typicaly believes that we can trust government officials when it comes to medical decisions, they have an irrational faith in democracy.
In reality government control over healthcare in democracies cannot work out particularly great since the regulators will have to please politicians who in turn have to please their voters and donors. Thus we cannot expect a government to make better decisions on medical matters than the average voter.
Leftwing trans spaces tend to be afraid of talking about DIY HRT since that is a capitalist solution that often work just fine, there are some areas (such as Canada) where that is hard to do unfortunately.
One big problem is that the left believes in psychiatry and therapists so they think we should rely on them when it comes to deciding who should transition. Liberals instead tend to be more supporting of "informed consent".
Thanks to having a more private healthcare system the US is able to deliver transgender healtcare to trans people (without relying on the DIY route) while Europe is worse than red states in that regard (due to american courts overruling the majority will of the mostly ignorant voters).
It's important to recognize that democracy isn't a legitimate way to govern a country. We need authoritarianism.
Puberty blockers
A lot of people assumed that they were safe because they were often prescribed against early puberty. Turns out they were not actually safe in the case of "precocious puberty" but they got prescribed anyway and then people assumed it would be safe for trans people. Conservatives only started criticizing puberty blockers when they started being given to trans children.
The better option is to give full HRT after banking sperm.
Refusal to do proper trials
For some reason leftwing/liberal government refuse to do proper randomized controlled trials on transgender medicine. This can be comparing monotherapy (estradiol injections) with estradiol pills + cyproterone acatate, it's not just about proving that HRT is beneficial.
This is the natural result of an ideology that focuses on the mind (gender identity) instead of physical sex-characteristics of a body.
Solving a problem requires recognizing that it exist in the first place and this is why it's counter productive to claim "you are a woman if you identity as such" since that amounts to denying real world issues trans people face such as being unable to get pregnant as a trans female. We also have to recognize that having a masculine face when trying to present as a women is problematic.
How liberals are failing
The main issue with liberals is that they tend to be unwilling to use authoritarianism to defeat conservatives, here the left is actually better since the left tend to be more vicious.
Sam Seder recently got destroyed
He recently did a 1 vs 20 debate and while he did fine for the most part he ended up eventually exposing himself for not being able to explain what he based his moral/political views on. He moved the goalpost multiple times.
First he claimed it was about harm reduction.
Then he shifted towards "we as a society has decided certain things via democracy".
Then he said he would not be fine with society deciding democratically to take away rights from trans people.
He made the argument "they were born that way" in an attempt to defend acceptance of homosexuality and then the other guy pointed out that pedophiles are likely born that way too, doesn't mean we should accept it.
Pedophilia is something that ideally should be bred out of the population but if we cannot do that (or if the price would be too high) we should still look at finding a cure for it and if that also isn't possible we end up having to resort to even worse options such as giving pedophiles sex-dolls and animated pornography made to their liking.
Then he shifted towards "it's different if there is 2 consenting adults" and then the other guy pointed out that it could be used to justify incest. The "consenting adults" thing is also bad for 2 other reasons, it applies that "consent" should be needed and it also implies that you would need to be adult first which means waiting years with a very strong sex drive before you can act on your natural biology.
Then there is the issue with leftwing ideology being self defeating and suicidal since it promotes low birth rates among other problems. People like sam seder cannot really defend all those issues so his only option is to constantly be on the offensive to 'win", the same is the case for people like vaush and destiny, they have to 'win' by attacking the person they are debating against since their own ideology being full of flaws and contradictions.
Of course there are plenty of issues with religious fundamentalism too. Religious fundamentalism is not how we build a strong modern society spanning the entire planet, it's backwards and far from ideal in terms of breeding, efficient warfare, expansion of borders, integration of new people into society, etc.
Persecuting gay/trans people doesn't really improve the fertility rate.
Nicolae Ceaușescu had some success with decree 770 but there were plenty of issues there. Merely trying to restrict access to abortion and contraceptives didn't go far enough it seems.
https://rdrama.net/post/349156/sam-seder-tries-to-pull-a
