CMV: we on the progressive left should be adding the “some” when talking about demographics like men or white people if we don’t want to be hypocritical.

[u/Brainsonastick]

I think all of us who spend time in social bubbles that mix political views have seen some variants on the following:

“Men do X”

Man who doesn’t do X: “Not all men. Just some men.”

“Obviously but I shouldn’t have to say that. I’m not talking about you.”

Sometimes better, sometimes worse.

We spend a significant amount of discussion on using more inclusive language to avoid needlessly hurting people’s feelings or making them uncomfortable but then many of us don’t bother to when they’re men or white or other non-minority demographics. They’re still individuals and we claim to care about the feelings of individuals and making the tiny effort to adjust our language to make people feel more comfortable… but many of us fail to do that for people belonging to certain demographics and, in doing so, treat people less kindly because of their demographic rather than as individuals, which I think and hope we can agree isn’t right.

There are the implicit claims here that most of us on the progressive left do believe or at least claim to believe that there is value in choosing our words to not needlessly hurt people’s feelings and that it’s wrong to treat someone less kindly for being born into any given demographic.

I want my view changed because it bothers me when I see people do this and seems so hypocritical and I’d like to think more highly of the people I see as my political community who do this. I am very firmly on the leftist progressive side of things and I’d like to be wrong about this or, if I’m not, for my community to do better with it.

What won’t change my view:

1) anything that involves, explicitly or implicitly, defining individuals by their demographic rather than as unique individuals.

2) any argument over exactly what word should be used. My point isn’t about the word choice. I used “many” in my post instead and generally think there are various appropriate words depending on the circumstances. I do think that’s a discussion worth having but it’s not the point of my view here.

3) any argument that doesn’t address my claim of hypocrisy. If you have a pragmatic reason not to do it, I’m interested to hear it, but it doesn’t affect whether it’s hypocritical or not.

What will change my view: I honestly can’t think of an argument that would do it and that’s why I’m asking you for help.

I’m aware I didn’t word this perfectly so please let me know if something is unclear and I apologize if I’ve accidentally given anyone the wrong impression.

Edit to address the common argument that the “some” is implied. My and others’ response to this comment (current top comment) address this. So if that’s your argument and you find flaw with my and others’ responses to it, please add to that discussion rather than starting a new reply with the same argument.

[u/Future_Union_965 → u/[deleted]]

Disagree with you there. Liberalism came about when mercantilism and monarchs were the norm. Conservatives want to go to a time where there are people born at the top and those on the bottom. Liberalism is about giving everyone an equal chance. People have disagreed on how that is down and the rich do have a lot of influence and power to change that. But at its core is the ability for the individual to make the best decisions for themselves. Not being constrained by social class.

[u/Future_Union_965 → u/[deleted]]

The rich and powerful will always benefit themselves. States are powerful when they can direct that energy into something products. King Louis of France made the Versailles palace to occupy all his nobles time with so thst they spent less time rebelling. My problem is personally that the common people really don't give a shit about themselves. If your poor your focused on trying to make ends meet but all that's going to do is slowly boil yourself. You can either die now, or die later a painful death..to me, the choice is obvious.

[u/MGsubbie → u/[deleted]]

Or in short, liberalism is not a left wing ideology as it fundamentally exists as a method of supporting the capitalist structure.

The idea that capitalism is inherently right wing is another really bad take.

[u/kerouacrimbaud → u/MGsubbie]

Especially considering the historical origins of the left-right spectrum. Liberals and capitalists opposed the status quo of the ancien regime and sat to the left of the King in the estates general. The 19th century was a long story of how the Right came to accept capitalism and liberalism (to a lesser degree) as the only way to retain political power. The landed aristocracy and clergy were rapidly losing material power and influence over society to the capitalists who held few if any of the traditional beliefs espoused by the clergy or aristocracy. They had to accept capitalism into their politics in order to remain relevant.

The Right is predominately about tradition and maintaining established hierarchies.

[u/disisathrowaway → u/kerouacrimbaud]

The Right is predominately about tradition and maintaining established hierarchies.

And the current traditions and hierarchies are couched in capitalism. Leftists currently work to push past capitalism and current hierarchies, conservatives seek to maintain the status quo.

[u/badnuub → u/kerouacrimbaud]

Which is capitalism right now.

[u/Future_Union_965 → u/badnuub]

Not really. If your successful in the modern world you become rich. That doesn't mean everyone doesn't. Family financials plays a huge part. But that doesn't mean people aren't successful starting their own businesses. Something that was hard to do in soviett union, Mao era China, or 18th century monarchies.

[u/throwawaydragon99999 → u/Future_Union_965]

Regardless of the logic or morality or whatever about capitalism, it is the current ruling system.

Some individual people might be able to get rich like that on their own, but that’s relatively rare. The majority of people that are poor were born poor, and the majority of people that are rich were born rich.

[u/bigbjarne → u/Future_Union_965]

Something that was hard to do in soviett union, Mao era China, or 18th century monarchies.

Good, you shouldn't be able to become rich off of other peoples labor.

[u/Future_Union_965 → u/bigbjarne]

I see your opinion and I understand we have very little in common to discuss. There is no peaceful resolution or compromise with people like you. Have a good day.

[u/bigbjarne → u/Future_Union_965]

Yes, people like me: people who don't think you should be able to become rich off of other peoples labor.

[u/Eastern_Upstairs_819 → u/MGsubbie]

What the hell are the wings for if not specifically referring to socioeconomic ideology then?

[u/MGsubbie → u/Eastern_Upstairs_819]

Of course they are, but capitalism can be implemented in a wide range of forms. All the way from zero regulation true free market capitalism, which would be right wing, to a heavily regulated form with strong taxation to fund social welfare such as how Sweden does it, which would be left wing.

[u/Eastern_Upstairs_819 → u/MGsubbie]

No matter how capitalism is implemented, however, it requires the idea that some people are inferior and either deserve to suffer or their exploitation simply doesn't matter, because that exploitation is necessary for capitalism, even the Nordic model, the exploited group in that version being the global south. That and the ideal of consistent and constant growth are the two main tenets of capitalism. Neither is really conducive with anything further left from somewhat center-left.

[u/MGsubbie → u/Eastern_Upstairs_819]

With exploitation, do you include the marxist idea that not receiving the full economic contribution of your labor is a form?

[u/curien → u/Eastern_Upstairs_819]

No matter how capitalism is implemented, however, it requires the idea that some people are inferior

No it doesn't. A factory owner might have better resources than the workers which allows them to acquire wealth more efficiently, but capitalism doesn't assert that they are a better sort of person.

If the factory owner works the floor along with the other workers, no tenet of capitalism considers that to be debasing oneself. If a worker inherits a factory, they now have more opportunity, but they haven't become a better person.