What is it leftists fundamentally don't understand that causes them to be leftists?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw
youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>What is it leftists fundamentally don't understand

Real life
Remember these kids have never met real adversity in their lives, all they know is 1st world problems, they are dumb sheltered know it alls who make up for their privileges by "fighting for equality" or "help the poor"

Neither the left nor right is 'objectively' right or wrong. Both sides just have different views on issues.

the concept of civilization.

I mean look at the ones in your picture, almost completely naked, lettering painted on their bodies, this might as well be the french horde the roman legion decimated

You have been visited by Based Biker Dave. The strength to BTFO Leftists will come to you, but only if you reply "Thanks, Based Biker Dave" to this post.

If neither side is right, both sides are wrong. Subjective relativism is self-refuting. If subjective relativism were corrent or valid, the proposition "subjective relativism is incorrect" would be paradoxical and couldn't exist.

Thanks based biker dave

They will believe anything as long as it makes them feel morally superior, and they act as such.

That's why they can deny mountains of evidence and willfully look the other way when it comes to black/migrant crime. Our countries are being destroyed just so they can appear tolerant and virtue signal to their fellow brain dead leftist friends.

that they are just useful idiot used by Jewish teacher and media to create tension between otherwise united people

they don't get that they are being played basically

Leftists are weak and stupid, their actions reflect this.

Their goal is to bring others down to their level and to have the state support their weakness.

Consequences and human action.

No, there are objectively wrong and incorrect ideologies. Like Communism, Marxism, and Anarcho-Capitalism. They're wrong to varying degrees, but they're still wrong in that any attempt to implement them would be a failure and shitty.

Despite being for "diversity" they have no greater grasp of history or the world beyond their doorstep and/or television screen.

They think all problems can be solved by attacking them in the most superficial, ideologically charged way instead of using critical thinking to analyze the root causes of a problem (i.e. pathetic green initiatives that ignore the fact that China and India pump so much pollution into the air that anything the USA does is irrelevant).

The main problem, and what makes it impossible to have a discussion with them is that they are entirely fueled by ideology and live in a false consciousness. They set up enemies in their mind and attack them, and when these enemies cease to exist they feel the need to fabricate new enemies, forever.

Causality.

Mental disorder.

Was going to say personal responsibility, but you basically beat me to it.

Libtards are never accountable for their own actions, and everything they advocate for is based solely on how it makes them feel.

History, tell the race traitors to take a long hard objective look at history and let them tell me that western civilization is shit.

That and critical theory/frankfurter school. Any professor advocating this shit deserves a bullet to the back of the head.

Human nature

tell me more about relativism my dear kike

It really is. I used to think it was a joke when people would call liberalism a mental illness. It's a fucking understatement.

Their emotions and ideology clouds their ability to be objective and logical. In the face of logic (that would shatter their beliefs) they would rather ignore it or silence it because it's almost religious... It's a type of fundamentalism, if you dare challenge their source of zeal and meaningfulness then they will rabidly defend it, doesn't matter if they are wrong in their eyes. They cling to it like a drug, some will ween themselves off of it, but then you have the no hopers that are beyond salvation.

It is best to just kill them.

They fail to understand that reality is harsh and the world has some very, very shitty people in it.

Fatherless sons (or even the fathers simply having to expend excessive energy to reign in their egoistic women) become as impulsive as the women who raise them. They are creating gang members and faggots just because someone told them they are as good as men in every respect.

Having grown up in a post-scarcity childhood yet in an increasingly ossified class system, virtue signalling is the only means liberals have to establish hierarchy and dominance in their respective social circles.

They're fanatics, you don't deal with fanatics, you exterminate them before they exterminate you

youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

Skip to 8:19 for the answer. Libs have a 2 tone morality, conservatives have a 5 tone morality. They are imbalanced people.

The only way to advance humanity is when everyone is pulling for the same cause. On the left EVERYONE is pulling for themselves and their own personal satisfaction. This is why they're always crying at the slightest inconvenience. Something big has managed to permeate their small echo chamber.

>the concept of civilization.
underrated post; pretty much this.

I just had this thought

There's been so many protests and marches since trump got office, even since he just started his run, and these marches don't seem to stop.

Trump has done more for America's overall health and fitness while not being in office than Michelle Obama has done in 8 years

Life isn't sacred or even valuable

Your only value comes from your productivity seen by others

Might makes right.

Literally all cities (AKA civilization) voted for Hillary.

Only retarded rednecks voted for Trump.

Taking responsibility for one's actions.

Reality

Natural selection applied towards humans.

Political science major here.

Literally everything within the left/right paradigm stems from this: the fundamental philosophy of equality of essence, vs equality of function.

Which one of these you believe in results in your worldview. How you arrive at which belief over the other is pure speculation, as this is an ancient dichotomy that will always exist.

That your feelings don't matter to other people

...

human nature
basic economics
rational thinking

They see some people having a good life and others not. They are taught and believe that the people having the good life are responsible for the people having the bad life. They refuse to believe that the people having the bad life are personally responsible for themselves. Thus they protest against the people with a good life, demanding that they "share" their good life.

That is the fundamental belief of communism/socialism/social justice.

Take from those who have and give to those who do not.

could you please help me understand these two worldviews? first time I've heard of them

>confusing a proper subset for the set
>what is a false equivocation
A FUCKING LEAF

i wonder the same thing about trump supporters

That they will die someday.

>What is it leftists fundamentally don't understand that causes them to be leftists?
Logic

I don't know but i think they should all be hanged

>equality of essence, vs equality of function.
So.. feels vs reals?

90% of the people that support Trump would support virtually any Republican candidate over a Democrat. He was just the one who had the best chances of winning.

Economics.

Biology.

/thread

Your answers all assume their the devil. They would say the same things about you.

Why don't you try answering like they would answer?

Equality of essence is the philosophy of equality of all men from birth, which inspires natures of good will and the drive for opportunity across the board. It's an emotional viewpoint, but it literally built the western world.

Equality of function is the philosophy that the best man for the job is always the right one, this is the worldview that took a back seat during the formation of the western world(moving away from Monarchies to republics and free market concepts) this is the truly ancient philosophy that gives results, but is very cold and logical and can lead down bad roads.

Both have their place, and must exist in perpetual balance. I'm just now waking up so my summation of these things is a little hasty.

instead of defending liberal ideology... Do you see how you entirely circumvented a necessary logical step just so you could act like a stupid, snarky liberal?

They don't understand what a book is.

Plain and simple

this Basing their world-view around how things ought to be, but perhaps aren't, rather than how things are.

Basically he's describes the is/ought fallacy in a really pleb way.

Leftists have a warped perception of time.

Normal people view time as flowing to the past to the present. You take lessons from history and act upon them in the present, to prevent mistakes. Leftists, on the other hand, see time as a path towards an idealized future, which only exists in their mind, that has even the power to change the past according to its convenience.

This is the source of all their problems. They become violent and dishonest, because they believe that the utopian future of their own creation is so desirable that any measure is justified to bring it about, and lying about the past and present, creating a fictitious narrative for historical purposes, if done for the sake of bring forth this desired future, is not only desirable but even mandatory.

That's why they love to say they're on the "right side of history". In their minds, they really are, they consider themselves judges of past and present society, as representatives of a historical future that their political actions will implement.

p sure their answers to such a question would consist solely of unsupported, childish name-calling.

The irony in this thread is suffocating

>real life
came here to post this
see it as the first post

france you know your shit m8

The first one is not entirely true. It rests fundamentally that people have the potentiality to be good. It was not accepted before the last century that someone was 'good' for simply being.

Are you in your first year?

This is bullshit, good totalitarians regimes are the only one that work

thank you

>The irony in this thread is """suffocating"""
What would leftists do without sensationalism? Literally suffocate and die?

underrated

...

I think one thing they don't understand is that all humans are not inherently equal. And not on a racist/sexist level either but in terms of potential and contribution to society. You can see this when they claim that refugees could grow up to be doctors or shout "racism!!" when confronted with statistics about violence and dysfunction within the black community.

Nature. Evolution. People are not Equal.

Common Sense.

The door is easy to find. You are welcome to use it.

So an unadulterated Right wing view would be that people are what they are and they never really change? I.e. once a criminal, always a criminal?

I understand that's reductionist but I'd like to get to the essence.

Senior. Read up on John Locke, Thomas Paine, people like that. Equality of essence as we know it today was yes, not implemented until around 100 to 150 years ago. But the adoption of this mindset became a legitimate worldview to be applied in the making of policy in the 1700s.

The future. That applies to the 'normal right' or 'cuckservatives' too.

They do not see that their actions and present trends have long-term consequences, and they do not see the inherent fragility of civilization.

To be perfectly frank, they deny the nature of man and nature in general

I like the cut of you jib

all men are created equal != all men are equal since birth

Let me give you an example.

Buddy of mine is an active member of the VVD (ruling party in this country). He agrees with me that in 50 years this country will probably not exist and thinks that is a terrible and dangerous thing.
But do you know something? We have elections in March, and he's voting for the same old party he's always voted for. Because he wants a cushy civil service job and knows that party membership is the way to get it. And damn the future.

>Equality of essence is the philosophy of equality of all men from birth, which inspires natures of good will and the drive for opportunity across the board. It's an emotional viewpoint, but it literally built the western world.

Nigga equality didnt really exist as a concept until the 1700's and by then the western world owned almost every other country.

A bunch of European explorers came to Africa and the Americas and wondered why the fuck they were all savages. The white man's burden was the realist shit

Objectivity > subjectivity

This.
They bought all the bullshit about everyone being a good person and everyone is equal and we can all live in harmony.
If you accept all that as true, it's very easy to see people who call for borders and immigration controls and nationalism as pieces of shit. The problem is it's all bollocks.

It's easy. Let's start off with Lefties view of human nature.

To an "Leftie", human nature is inherently good. AKA the noble savage. Humans only commit evil because of outside forces, notably society, corrupt this base good natured human. All humans are capable of intellectual "enlightment" (which means believe as they do) and should be the goal of all humans.
This leads to liberals, in their own internal logic, beleiving that society at large, and it's organization, is to be faulted for the evils of mankind. They believe that if only the "right", most "enlightened" people were I'm charge, then all would be well. This leads to a holier than thou attitude, or a superiority complex that is very common among liberals.
Perhaps the most damaging underpinning of liberals is that they believe there are problems AND solutions to those problems. Very black and white. The ideal government of these people is one where a few "enlightened" individuals lead and "objectively" make the "best" choices for all. RESULTS MATTER to a liberal.

Let's constrast this with what a typical Conservative (think Trey Gowdy or the founding fathers) believes.
They believe that humans are inherently flawed, and are inherently capable of evil deeds. They see society as a way to restrict our evil nature and to nurture our good nature. Humans, being imperfect as they are, cannot create perfect systems of government, nor can even the 'best' people be counted on to be right all the time. Conservatives believe that there are ONLY TRADEOFFS. True solutions are not possible for flawed man. To a conservative, the ideal government is a system where many hold power and where the individuals morality is subverted by the system of which they are a part. It is the system that is to be constructed as well as possible. The PROCESS matters to a Conservative.

Real world examples: the French revolution is the 'liberal' vision, while the American Revolution is the Conservative vision.

This is an excellent question. It's complicated but it boils down to two things:
>Equality of outcome versus equality in principle
>Adherence to a leftist narrative rather than allowing oneself to be educated

This doesn't mean "educated people become conservative", it means rather than let someone convince you of the virtue and merit of something, you adhere to a narrative (repeating phrases even when they don't apply to the argument, insisting on equality of outcome, even when it doesn't make sense for the given situation, etc.)

The only thing that will "fix" a liberal is trauma:
>living through a time in their lives when they can enjoy their little college tribe (see OP's pic) and then growing up in the real world
>getting mugged by a dindu
>war
>getting themselves beaten bloody by police before realizing their lame liberal professors and friends aren't around to help them though they got them into this situation
>experiencing life: i.e., buying a house, car, health insurance, having children, experiencing family, having a job you've invested time and effort into (to have a professional relationship) and suddenly realizing these things are good, and they have nothing to do with some nutty liberal professor and his/her ideas.

But it's really the "Equality of outcome" they don't realize. This is the ideal that separates communism from capitalism. Look at communist "five year plans" for a hard example of why communism (read: marxism and left-ism) fails, often utterly and with great horror -- if the outcome justifies the means, then you're living in slavery.

Have you read Thomas Sowells "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Stuggles" ? If you haven't you really should, very good book about this topic.

>What is it leftists fundamentally don't understand that causes them to be leftists?
The fact that just because they were living in a rich neighbourhood in a homogeneous society were only nonwhite people they've ever met were "tokens" does not mean every nonwhite person act like that.
When you ask lefties 90% of them un-ironically believe that islam is religion of peace and black people commit crime because they are being opressed not because of their shitty culture that glorifies this kind of thing.

I've noticed liberals tend to think social systems should be in place and not tampered with, even when they can (and almost always are) abused heavily - welfare and unemployment for example. The common liberal phrase is they'd "rather have 1,000 people leech off welfare than let one person who needs it starve", without understanding that you can have one without the other and if 1,000 people really are abusing a system to every 1 who needs it, then the system does need sweeping changes.

>the only way you can become a conservative is by getting BTFO
you're not making yourself look any better

first time I'm glad boobies are blurred

youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc