You are right, but I think there is an important distinction.
You can be on the Right and not do those things. It works within the framework of nearly all forms of Right wing thought commonly held these days, even if some choose to be retards about it.
You cannot be on the Left without being that way. Its diametrically opposed to the very foundations and beliefs that predicate you being on the Left. If someone claims to be on the Left and isn't doing so, they are either a bad Leftist, a retard who has no idea what words mean, or just an outright hypocrite.
This is only important because it means that someone being on the Right isn't an immediate "enemy" while someone claiming to be on the Left has to be by default.
I think the problem is that most of the problems those people complain about are actual problems. We just disagree on the severity and solution.
Let's take porn. Porn addiction is a real problem, effecting an absurd number of people and its having a tangible effect on people's perceptions of reality. Do we simply let that go unabated and hope eventually it settles out? Or do we acknowledge some people can't handle freedom and need to be led by the nose?
I think that's the big schism in the Right these days. The philosophical quandary of if people can be trusted with their own freedom, or do they need to be held firm to a standard to keep them above water. The rise of atheism after the decline of Christianity has shown that at least in that category they absolutely cannot be left to figure it out on their own.
I think as long as these problems exist and are so palpable in the damage they cause, we can't rightly tell these people to shutup and leave. We need to come to a middle point of either "truce until the Left is dead" or compromise on those beliefs to bring them to reality.
You are right, but I think there is an important distinction.
You can be on the Right and not do those things. It works within the framework of nearly all forms of Right wing thought commonly held these days, even if some choose to be retards about it.
You cannot be on the Left without being that way. Its diametrically opposed to the very foundations and beliefs that predicate you being on the Left. If someone claims to be on the Left and isn't doing so, they are either a bad Leftist, a retard who has no idea what words mean, or just an outright hypocrite.
This is only important because it means that someone being on the Right isn't an immediate "enemy" while someone claiming to be on the Left has to be by default.
I think the problem is that most of the problems those people complain about are actual problems. We just disagree on the severity and solution.
Let's take porn. Porn addiction is a real problem, effecting an absurd number of people and its having a tangible effect on people's perceptions of reality. Do we simply let that go unabated and hope eventually it settles out? Or do we acknowledge some people can't handle freedom and need to be led by the nose?
I think that's the big schism in the Right these days. The philosophical quandary of if people can be trusted with their own freedom, or do they need to be held firm to a standard to keep them above water. The rise of atheism after the decline of Christianity has shown that at least in that category they absolutely cannot be left to figure it out on their own.
I think as long as these problems exist and are so palpable in the damage they cause, we can't rightly tell these people to shutup and leave. We need to come to a middle point of either "truce until the Left is dead" or compromise on those beliefs to bring them to reality.