If you want to refute the op-ed, you should attempt a semantic deconstruction of it's fundamental assumptions - for example it's definition of "freedom". You're almost there by redefining "leftist", but you didn't fully support your assertion or refute the article's definition. If the author is not describing "leftist", he's describing "something". Is the author wrong about that "something"? What would you call that "something"?

What you're claiming neither matches the reality of all leftist governance (or let's say proposed governance if you believe "leftism has never been tried") since the 20th century, or even what honest leftists claim now days. It's ironic you talk about "boomer beliefs" when you sound like a hippy from the 70s. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you're attempting to make the distinction between shitlib LARPers and the "real left" that ThatsAlright always does.

Taught "Political theory" is neomarxist bullcrap. Fabians who took over the education system after WW2 pushed the idea of a left-right spectrum to reinforce the idea that right-wing is "Literally Hitler" and left-wing is "Anti-Hitler". There was no other purpose than to soften up society to accept their anti-nationalist ideas.

In 21st century reality, left and right are tribal signifiers. The left are who they say they are and who identify with their side, vice versa for the right. Whatever utopian anti-state plans you think anyone on the left (or right) dreams about - they are nothing but dreams. Any revolutionary movement nearing success will be subsumed by those so-called LARPers (who make up the majority of humanity) for own benefit.

Oh, this is funny. Just the other day we were talking about insane leftists who claim anyone to the right of Mao isn't a leftist - and here's one in the wild.

If you want to refute the op-ed, you should attempt a semantic deconstruction of it's fundamental assumptions - for example it's definition of "freedom". You're almost there by redefining "leftist", but you didn't fully support your assertion or refute the article's definition. If the author is not describing "leftist", he's describing "something". Is the author wrong about that "something"? What would you call that "something"?

What you're claiming neither matches the reality of all leftist governance (or let's say proposed governance if you believe "leftism has never been tried") since the 20th century, or even what honest leftists claim now days. It's ironic you talk about "boomer beliefs" when you sound like a hippy from the 70s. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you're attempting to make the distinction between shitlib LARPers and the "real left" that ThatsAlright always does.

Taught "Political theory" is neomarxist bullcrap. Fabians who took over the education system after WW2 pushed the idea of a left-right spectrum to reinforce the idea that right-wing is "Literally Hitler" and left-wing is "Anti-Hitler". There was no other purpose than to soften up society to accept their anti-nationalist ideas.

In 21st century reality, left and right are tribal signifiers. The left are who they say they are and who identify with their side, vice versa for the right. Whatever utopian anti-state plans you think anyone on the left (or right) dreams about - they are nothing but dreams. Any revolutionary movement nearing success will be subsumed by those so-called LARPers (who make up the majority of humanity) for own benefit.

Oh, this is funny. Just the other day we were talking about insane leftists who claim anyone to the right of Mao isn't a leftist - and here's one in the wild.

What you're claiming neither matches the reality of all leftist governance (or let's say proposed governance if you believe "leftism has never been tried") since the 20th century, or even what honest leftists claim now days. It's ironic you talk about "boomer beliefs" when you sound like a hippy from the 70s. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you're attempting to make the distinction between shitlib LARPers and the "real left" that ThatsAlright always does.

Taught "Political theory" is neomarxist bullcrap. Fabians who took over the education system after WW2 pushed the idea of a left-right spectrum to reinforce the idea that right-wing is "Literally Hitler" and left-wing is "Anti-Hitler". There was no other purpose than to soften up society to accept their anti-nationalist ideas.

In 21st century reality, left and right are tribal signifiers. The left are who they say they are and who identify with their side, vice versa for the right. Whatever utopian anti-state plans you think anyone on the left (or right) dreams about - they are nothing but dreams. Any revolutionary movement nearing success will be subsumed by those so-called LARPers (who make up the majority of humanity) for own benefit.

If you want to refute the op-ed, you should attempt a semantic deconstruction of it's fundamental assumptions - for example it's definition of "freedom". You're almost there by redefining "leftist", but you didn't fully support your assertion or refute the article's definition. If the author is not describing "leftist", he's describing "something". Is the author wrong about that "something"? What would you call that "something"?