Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Are leftist just more disconnected from reality because of securities of Urbanism?
If so to forestall the collapse of civilization do we really just need to focus more on education of those realities of life? Demonstrate where everything comes from and how systems break down, and the hard work required to make everything work?
Stop saying 'leftist' you fucking dumb cunt.
There is no such thing.
There literally no 2 people who identify as being red or blue who agree.
There are positions which are OBVIOUSLY 'owned' by the wrong camp, for example gun ownership is a LIBERAL position, this is done deliberately to mind fuck you and keep you arguing about nothing with all the other clueless fuckwits while the rich take all the fucking money.
Stop being a fucking dumb cunt and figure out that all the shit that has been raining down on your head your whole life came from above.
The most effective word is leftest, in that it refers to the ideology on the left hand on the french king.
Liberal for most of the world refer to libertarian which is the opposite of the large goverment demanded by the left wing around the world. In America this is on the right generally far right.
So Liberal makes no sense as how to describe the ideology of the left.
What have i just said to you?
Quote: this is done deliberately to mind fuck you and keep you arguing about nothing with all the other clueless fuckwits while the rich take all the fucking money.
@guffrus
So your saying by using precise words to refer to more precise aspects of political policy is a scheme by the rich?
Funny generally people try to generalize to get people to overlook abusive behavior in the detail... for example using the term "undocumented immigrate" is to mislead people into thinking all that illegally imported cheap labor undermining wage was merely a documentation problem.
Language is indeed used as a weapon by those who control it to mislead people. In that case the AP cartel, (controlled by guess who) changed their standards to mislead people on the problem. They lobbied and paid our top level political leader to avoid ever doing anything effective against.
in this case we are distinguishing opposite policy platforms Liberalism and collectivism.
Precise?
I don't know how you get there.
Left and right terms are meaningless because there are multiple contradictory ideas all bundled together.
There is nothing precise about it.
Furthermore if you want to go back to the root and French Kings then left would mean the exact opposite of what I at least generally understand it to mean when said by an American speaker, i. e. to be on the left means to be an authoritarian communist.
So why are you using terms which at best mean fuck all and at worse mean the exact opposite of what you are trying to say?
I said more precise not precise, There are 2 broad definitions for "liberal" the original one which has subsequently been called "Libertarianism" to distinwish from the current one which is similar in political policy to socialism a completely opposite physical policy.
Name switches like this are not uncommon in the dishonest game of politics as a means of getting votes by deception, party name themselfs normally being somewhat contradictory of party platforms when first named.
I think that they have not had to deal with the more challenging aspects of life. I went to a wedding over the weekend. The bride and groom both came from very wealthy families and they both went to an expensive private college. They had a lot of their friends an attendance. They all were also spoiled rich kids that never had to work at a burger king or drive a beat up old car. They were all liberals.
@exitseven The only one I got to choose
Opinion
5Opinion
Of course not- they just have different realities. It's not the city-based liberals who think homosexuals are going to destroy civilization, or that immigration destroys cultural values.
If anyone needs more education about society-wide systems, it's the rural conservatives who think their economies can sustain themselves without the giant cities consuming what they produce.
@namerofstars Its not like we have seen large call immigration destroy cultural values and homosexuality define the decline of a population countless times before in the great cycle of civilizations around the world.
Nor is it that logically difficult for anyone connected with the real world why, embracing homosexuality is rejecting relationships based upon kids, without kids and the relationships which stabilize them civilization tends not to survive.
Embarrassing large scale immigration from forign cultures literately imports those cultures to resettle the land abandoned by the kids not born and raised. Too much of this combined with too few raised children means your culture ceases to exist even more quickly than your people.
If you can't draw that conclusion you clearly never learned about the birds and the bees. Perhaps you even neglected to notice the long term trends of your own city.
Um, yes, that's EXACTLY what it's like.
"Embracing homosexuality" doesn't lead to lower levels of kids being born; homosexuals aren't going to have kids anyway- or do you not understand what "homosexual" means? Yes, lower population generation rates require new blood, if not from immigration, then where, exactly, do you think it comes? I know- let's ask the Mayans! Oh, wait.
Cultures don't cease to exist when genetics change- but then, you wouldn't know that unless you spent time studying history, or genetics, or anthropology, or pretty any field of study beyond "half-assedly justifying your own bigotries". That's still an option, and I recommend it for you. We have plenty of libraries in the cities.
@namerofstars
Embracing homosexuality embraces an idea and teachings upon the minds of very flexible people that does indeeed inhibit their inclination to have kids from several logical lines of reasoning.
First it makes more of the homosexual, a fact we have seen expressed among the exploding homosexual rate of the young.
Second it devalues life and children by focusing on the only aspect of a relationship which homosexuals can and do enjoy, the adults. This likewise encourages even straight people to focus on that aspect of the relationships rather than the children for which the relationships is ultimately necessary.
If you are a tiny city state isolated in culture then for a time 'new blood' might enable you to replace the enormous domestic losses of your own failed political, social (cultural) policies. Provided at least you have the economics or political means to overpower other smaller still successful regions.
However eventually you run out of other people's with this unsustainable system not unlike how your unsustainable economic policies eventually run out of their money.
Most leftists have never ever know hardship, never know hard work, never known contributing to society.. Thats why MOST middle and lower class people are conservatives.
What nonsense. Ever considered that USA is not normal in the first place? The rest of the western world has long since progressed towards the left leaving USA in the dust. USA is abnormally right wing, it is they that are disconnected from reality if you simply judge it by the rest of the world.
Not true, @soteris The video kind of illustrates this is a global phenomenon that has been true thou-out history.
Its one of the most straight forward explications I've heard.
Others include the mental effects of living too close together, and the corruption of envy and greed, but those all simply complement the same conclusion. While not explaining mere technological changes.
It also makes perfect sense why civilizations fall as they invariably become too disconnected from reality and destroy themselfs.
No the video is wrong. It has a few things right, for example it highlights fear as a driving factor for conservatism but fails to make the obvious connection between the fear and the politics. For example, much of conservative politics today resolves around fearmongering, to fear the unknown, but what if that unknown no longer becomes unknown?
Living in cities forces you to confront many things, some of this is other people and other cultures. Muslims and such no longer become something unknown to be afraid of but something you have personal experience with and that experience runs contrary to the fearmongering put out by conservative politicians and as such reduces its influence on you.
Conservative politics works best against people who are scared and ignorant of the real world, such as people who are living isolated out in the countryside. That is all there is to it really.
@soteris
I can't claim the video is right about everything, but as a history buff they are right about what happened to ancient civilizations, this is a regular pattern.
Their explication does hold water in fitting the historic evidence. Thou I don't agree with the origin of conservative thought given its actually based upon history, this too at least can explain some of the evidence.
Your subjective experience as an individual with different sorts of people in a city does not account political problems which hold their roots in overall populations and cultural clash. it doesn't even represent the population there are after all agreeable and disagreeable people of every culture.
Theses things have to be observed over time in different situation among the larger groups that allow for imposing. Most minorities are agreeable so long as they are too small to really assert themselfs.
This is usually true of people as well, if they know they are in a minority they will be respectful to avoid making enemies they can't control.
Conservative politics works best among people who deal with the actual world as it is not the one crafted carefully by other people for the propose of other people.
To this end they also know people better because they had the chance to learn their nature from peers not soo expertly far from them. Where as the City is dominated by people who specialized in manipulating and using other people. This makes the people there of very much the playthings of such master manipulators so far ahead of them and in control of soo much of the rest of the environment as to never learn their craft.
No the video is not correct about that either. There are indeed periods of time where development happens faster in certain regions but taken as a whole there has only really been one period in history that I can think of where humanity truly regressed and that was during the bronze age collapse. Otherwise humanity has been on a pretty much constant progression upwards.
Examples such as the collapse of the roman empire leading into the dark ages does not actually represent a regression in development. You could argue that it represented a regression in social development AKA the destruction of centralized states as opposed to the feudal system but that is a political change rather than a development or technological one.
Their theory also does not make sense taken in a broader context. They already had to introduce an excuse that Europe was "safer" than USA to explain away why there was an overall difference between the continents beyond what their model could predict but quite frankly that is just trying to patch a failing theory. The more you look into this the more you will find that reality simply dont conform with their predictions.
My argument over personal experiences in cities making you less susceptible for Republican advertisement and arguments simply boils down to the conservative arguments being used today in advertisements simply being really bad ones which falls apart if you have some general understanding. It works best against those who are isolated from the subjects used such as various minorities or whatever.
Nothing stops the conservatives from getting better arguments but quite frankly I have not seen anyone being interested in developing the Conservative platform for my entire life. Call it laziness, incompetence or perhaps just apathy but as far as I can tell they have just ran the same old playbook over and over and over again.
Its also worth pointing out that you make the argument that conservative politics works best among people who deal with the "actual world". I disagree. People who are living in a rural area is not living in the "actual world", they are living in a small bubble with extremely low diversity of thought, problems and anything else. It is a thin vertical slice of the human experience which they experience as a full life and incorrectly extrapolates to everywhere else.
People who live in cities are exposed to a much broader spectrum of both humanity and the world as a whole. They have a far better understanding of the "actual world" as you want to call it which includes both the crafted and the natural.
@soteris
You seem to be soo self-centered that you don't even recognize your own position of "understanding" is alien to others and unique to your circumstances.
Republican arguments make a lot of sense and they do in fact produce working poly. The underlining assumptions, believes, and values you declare as "understanding" are not nessarly outside the city if true at all.
Thou I grant you aspects of this 'understanding' is true for the particular circumstances of the city. That does not make it true outside the city nor particularity true overall.
To appeal to city folk Republicans need to craft their policy platform and argument to the understanding and interest of City folk. Where there is shared power this can come into conflict the needs of other areas as well as unfortunately functional policy to yeld to the out of touch understanding of a political base that has no idea how anything really works.
Assuming republicans are both able and inclined to take such position they would next need to actually be able to reach such people which can be a challenge.
@soteris
Many not all of theses people live in more basic close to nature economie where they do a larger share of the work themselfs and therefore know a larger share of what is required.
Cities by contrasts are defined by specalist who narrowly focus on one task and food & energy protection tends not to be among such tasks given it must be imported.
This makes it far easier to fool city folk on the details of relationships, and as a result the corruption of power which exist in such details.
Again, you are making the argument that a tiny subset of humanity living mostly isolated in a small geographic region has managed to get a grasp on how the world works. That is very unlikely from the outset. For example, what do people who live in Florida know about living in a climate that goes into freezing temperatures half the year? A small problem that impacts the local society and its culture but that experience is not really spread across the world.
Cities on the other hand are collections of people who each has unique cultures and experiences. Within cities you can find people who has experience living in the snow or have experience living under the threat of hurricanes like in Florida. The people in cities are also interacting with each other and exchanging these experiences and cultures. Cities becomes a meltingpot for what humanity experiences all around the world and as such people living in cities has an inherently better grasp on reality.
Furthermore, people who lives in cities are more likely to travel as opposed to rural people. People who lives in cities have a much larger chance of having traveled to different parts of the world and experienced more diversity.
Meanwhile, rural people are more isolated to their geographic region. They will most likely only know people who are from that region and rarely travel from it. That puts a very hard limit on exactly how much of the world they can come to understand. Rural people in Florida will have a hard time to relate with rural people in Alaska. They live completely different lives with completely different challenges and that shapes their understanding.
But the fact remains, it does not matter how much you know about your life in a rural village in USA when it comes to understanding life in Africa or Asia or even Europe and Australia. They are completely different and as I have said before, the unknown is scary.
@exitseven Must not have been very good communist governments then eh?
@exitseven Are there any good capitalist governments?
@exitseven "Started out"? As in slavery?
@soteris It is not the various climate of the world in which you don't live that is important for they are each spesfic problems to be solved. It is rather the people who solve those problems that is important to understanding reality.
In the city you may (not always) have in person access to people with personal experience with local problems all over the world, just as everyone everywhere at their finger tips has similar access to such information.
What all the people of the city DO have is a very artificial environment in which they personally do not have to know or be responsible for almost any problem.
Most problems have indeed been engendered away by other people you can't possibly know by means you can't possibly understand.
Under an organizational system of 10s of thousands if not millions of people soo complex in its interactions you can't possibly keep track of soo many interest and motivations.
Instead your forced to very much simplify and generalize, and in the process you lose much if not most of the understanding of the human and even physical reality around you.
That is the problem which leaves urbanized so vulnerable to manipulation, and separated from reality. Indeed in a way you kind of know of this problem in your campaigns against generalization, even-thou your almost entirely incapable of solving it. Your brains after all are really only designed to handle around 500 people.
@monorprise
I disagree. The various climates around the world has a major role in shaping the society that lives in it and by extension has a major impact on your limited perception and knowledge about the world. These are things that you internalize and which becomes part of you on a fundamental level.
My favorite example is in regards to language where there is a language without the concept of "left" and "right" and where you instead use cardinal directions like "north" and "south". That means they build in an intuitive sense of where north is for example and it shapes them both in a language sense but also how their minds thinks. This is true for everything, big and small. You are shaped by your experiences, not just in how you overcome challenges.
In regards to having personal access to people with unique experiences, that is not actually strictly necessary. First of all, ever heard of six degrees of separation? It is a theory that any person on earth can connect to any other person on earth through connecting 5 mutual friends. To add to that you also have to account for the spread of culture. You are exposed to other cultures indirectly through friends and people you meet. The denser the community is and the more diversity there exist the more it will mix together just like what happens in major cities.
Which by extension means the more isolated you are and the fewer unique experiences there exist around you the less you will be exposed to this. AKA rural.
I think the proof speaks for itself though. If you question people about their worldly knowledge or news then people in cities will be far more knowledgeable. This is a well known fact.
There is no dispute @soteris that the conditions of geography and thus climate have an enormous determining factor in shaping the people, their economy, and culture.
That however is a question of interest and needs. Indeed in a great many ways a the man-made environment of the city creates an entirely new and less distinct climate and geography in which people develop.
The trouble with this Urban Geography and climate is that it is very much man-made and thus also man changed and man controlled. This might seem a blessing but when combined with the enormous number of people required to carry out this task beyond what any human can maintain track of and you got population for which few if any really know whats going on.
Your 6 degrees of separation theory thou valid and probably even more true of the more connected communities than the more isolated ones really missed this point. For while you may know someone who know someone who knows someone. The amount of practical commutation and interest sharing via said connections is limited.
Instead you got very indirect influence which runs into conflict with local and individual needs. This makes cities powerful but it doesn't make its inhabitants smarter if anything it just overwhelms and confuses them more. This like the already far too complex local urban environment makes them easily manipulated by others who's interest they can't accurately follow, nor actions understand.
Your dealing with the limits of the human mind, and how we tend to react when given too much to follow.
The rural countryside is no less "manmade" than a city. The fact that urban areas are more developed does not increase its "fakeness" so to speak. People in 99% of American rural areas for example would not handle the transition back towards actual self sustainable living very well. Once the tractors stops working, the electricity goes out, the fuel or just the things inside their stores then they are just as fucked.
A farmer might be able to farm and do many incredible things by themselves but they are still reliant on the wider society to provide him with most things he requires to live their current lifestyle and farming is no less a specialized knowledge base than computer programming is.
But your argument sounds like it mostly revolves around the limits of the human mind, in how cities are just too much stimulus and makes these people easier to influence. I would argue the opposite. Rural people have access to so little information that it becomes easier to manipulate them since they lack a reference to what is real and true compared to the limited information you spoon feed them.
It’s full of women and minorities. It’s not some big mystery.
This guy feels like he lives in my head.
Leftists can't be fixed.
That isn't the question, can they be avoided.
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions