Sure, leadership of the Democratic party is feeble & ineffectual. What’s stopping everybody else from doing something more? That’s right: they lack ideas & suck just as much. This system ultimately depends on the people.

That’s more of a personal skill/lack of resilience issue.

Many healthcare providers hold strong negative attitudes and stereotypes about people with obesity.

Good thing they’re not healthcare providers: argument discarded.

Welcome to the concept of insults.

punish emotions

Your emotions are your business, not ours.

Promoting antisemitism by misdirecting blame to the Jewish people for divisive actions of Christian Zionists^[1] is the GOP strategy.

Society is overdue for anti pearl clutching memes.

deleted by creator

Only if you’re talking about 3rd parties. The major parties have primaries to get them on the ballot that way.

STAR voting properties

In summary, STAR voting satisfies the monotonicity criterion, the resolvability criterion, and Condorcet loser. It fails to satisfy clone independence, the Condorcet criterion, the mutual majority criterion, the later-no-harm criterion, and reversal symmetry.

Not sure about this: lack of Condorcet & later-no-harm criteria seem significant. I’d think Smith-efficient voting methods are better.

Table comparing voting methods by criteria.

(yes) voting

At least you acknowledge it. It takes civic participation & political organizing to get it done. It doesn’t just happen without enough voter activation & activism to get the right people on the ballot see it through.

With magic?

Your comment is propaganda.

no such thing as auth-left

Tell that to Marxist-Leninists or North Korea.

or lib-right

Tell that to conservatives or right-wing libertarians.

The definition of the right-left spectrum is rooted in the french revolution.

Wikipedia refers to division over Ancien Régime, ie, the monarchy & aristocracy of nobility classes. It was specifically over the right of the king to an absolute veto of the new constitution: opposers sat to the left of the president of the National Assembly & advocates sat to the right.

That’s a distinction in political authority rather than entrepreneurial economics. That political power of the king aligns with social inequality & concentration of authority. In that society, social inequality was related to hierarchal authority of aristocratic & royal privileges culminating to the king. Their reforms had more to do with ending the unequal inherited privileges & authority of feudalism: legal equality (equal access to justice, equal legal punishment, equal eligibility to public office, equal taxability, equal imposition of authority) regardless of (aristocratic) class or birth.

Whoever has power controls economy and vice-versa.

Here’s an exclusive: power^[1] is power. It’s not always economic: wealth doesn’t necessarily lead to power. Someone with enough iron or lead can carry off anyone’s gold, so authority can deny wealth power. Authority also is power, so whoever has it^[2] unrestricted necessarily poses a threat for subjugating others or repressing personal freedoms. Considering power that way is simply more general than claiming all power is economic & guarding against only that.

Power can come from anything: ability to inspire & indoctrinate, popular support, social ties, institutional (ideological, moral, traditional, governmental) legitimacy, (dis)information, expertise. People who haven’t deluded themselves with idioticly reductive ideologies into thinking the only power is economic recognize this.

The National Assembly of the French revolution were keenly aware: they ended unequal power relations due to feudalism & lineage, not due to wealth, to gain personal freedom.

So, personal political freedom isn’t entirely dependent on economic equality. That’s why totalitarian communist states are considered as oppressive as fascist states despite corresponding to opposite ends of the political spectrum. That’s why political scientists find utility in splitting distinct considerations like authority into separate dimensions: they reveal a similarity hidden by a simpler model.

There are other models with more solid academic work such as the cultural map of the world values survey along dimension of secular-rationalism & self-expression. There, ex-communist societies systematically cluster toward less self-expression.

Liberalism arises from the willing abuse of an under-regulated economy that allows consolidation of wealth and, therefore, accumulation of power. Therefore the end result of unchecked liberalism is always rightism.

If that’s the case, then why are liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia more economically equal than most communist states? Could your approach is too reductive?

The goal is to prevent runaway snowballing of wealth or power that would allow any person or group to subjugate others, ideally in a way that is sustainable and stable.

The same can be stated for all other freedoms. In a completely unregulated society, people would be free to abuse each other. Government authority already restricts people from abusing each other economically & non-economically. The huge concern you’re overlooking is not abuse between individuals, but between the government & its people, ie, abuse of authority.

The concepts cannot be separated.

This and the rest you wrote are nonsense that overlooks the significant role of government in the abuse of individual liberties & rights throughout history. Government can authorize itself to abuse all rights & liberties equally or prohibit itself equally: both approaches can deliver social equality. It’s a separable consideration as demonstrable by ideologies on the map failing to all align on a single diagonal line.

Welcome to logic.

Now if only that would dawn on everyone else (especially tankies): trading one brand of inequality for another is still inequality.

Fixed the font.

I thought OP’s message was cut-and-dried political science everyone knew, then I saw the comments here debating it. Wow, people on lemmy are lost. This information is everywhere: just go to wikipedia.

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, with emphasis placed upon issues of social equality and social hierarchy.

It’s the 1ˢᵗ axis of the political map commonly shown.

Just because you have a weird fetish for

• unequal dispensation of benefits according to your political loyalty, class, or ethnic origin
• illegitimate authority sending you to forced labor camps
• secret police extrajudicially killing your indoctrinated ass
• purges, mass executions
• unrestricted power to trample your freedom of movement, assembly, speech

and the state altogether treating you like its bitch, that doesn’t mean everyone else needs to share in your perversion.

At least in a liberal democracy, the state is our bitch when we criticize politicians, oust them from office, take abusers to trial. Most of us in liberal democracies aren’t getting fucked over by the wealthy in any palpable way. And when they do fuck us over, we get to challenge them in court with legal equality before the rule of law.

In contrast, when the state fucks you over, you don’t get to challenge shit.

So, it’s great you embrace your state-dom fetish, but no one’s asking.

We’re seeing a current administration bastardise faith almost every day.

Welcome to the politicization of religion since always.

The racial divide can in part be traced to the mid-1970s when the Internal Revenue Service began removing tax-exempt status from private schools that discriminated by race. Conservative Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell saw this as federal overreach and seized on abortion as an issue that could be framed in religious and political terms.

Falwell’s organisation the Moral Majority used abortion as a broader symbol of moral decline alongside feminism, sex education and gay rights.

How Jesus-like.

Whereas Carter earned 60% of the white evangelical vote in 1976, fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton gained only a 16% share in 2016. It was a troubling realignment that caught the eye of Doug Pagitt, a pastor and executive director of the progressive Christian group Vote Common Good.

He said: “That’s not natural. That’s not just a policy change. There was something more significant going on. It’s been a two-sided effort. Republicans have oriented themselves primarily around religious voter identity and Democrats have set aside religious voter identity, including the fact that in 1992 Democrats removed from the voter access file the category of religious identity.”

This is where Democrats fucked themselves: they have a far stronger claim to Jesus’ preachings & could have easily challenged Falwell’s hypocrisy.

The loss of web connectivity is an acute problem for the commenters on here who seem oblivious to Nick Fuentes.

Also, Voter suppression in the United States.

That is the correct rendering: a details element then a p element. In HTML

<details><summary> Needs text alternative. </summary>
⁝
</details>
<p>The indoctrinated MAGA women want to fuck them, though.</p>

A control for the details element can expand or collapse its content. In what sense is this broken?

He has a history with underage girls.

He has enough history that we can judge him for all of it. We don’t need to abandon integrity & accuracy. We shouldn’t fault others for defending the truth. We should fault ourselves for failing to respect it.

You can’t keep claiming ignorance when it keeps happening.

They weren’t.