Public smoking should be banned. And I’m not sure why so many people insist that they have a right to pollute everyone else’s air. Especially when asthma is not an uncommom condition.
And kids are being hurt just by this drug abuse being on public display almost everywhere
Is that a right wing view? I always saw the right wing view as “fuck you, I can give lung cancer to whomever I want.”
No, most of the views in this thread aren’t right wing views. Not allowing smoking in public because it’s hazardous to other health would be considered more of a left wing ideal because it puts the health of the working class as a whole over the desire of the individual to poison themselves.
So many of these comments are actually just extreme views that many people actually agree with. Most seeming to be left wing oriented. Threads like this are always stupid because the author is just trying to start controversy in the community and most of the commenters aren’t going to post their ACTUAL right wing thoughts because they know they will get downvoted and harassed for them.
So many of these comments are actually just extreme views that many people actually agree with. Most seeming to be left wing oriented. Threads like this are always stupid because the author is just trying to start controversy in the community and most of the commenters aren’t going to post their ACTUAL right wing thoughts because they know they will get downvoted and harassed for them.
Could also be that most people in this community don’t really hold right wing views, being leftists. Or if they do hold them, they aren’t really aware of them. I can’t imagine anyone here holding full on reactionary views and being aware of it, and we aren’t going to have economic right wing ideas here, what with the whole communism thing.
To be fair, this is lemmygrad
I suppose that’s a way to see it. In my experience being around hippies and ultra left people, a weirdly common view is that tobacco and weed are completely harmless and it should be allowed everywhere.
But that might have been them talking from their addicted perspective?
Market reforms of Deng were amazing
I hope you won’t mind my ultra moment here. I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
Even in retrospect, Deng Xiaoping seems to be the rightmost someone can be and still reasonably be considered a communist. Looking at some of his unimplemented ideas and the policies that were reversed in the following decades, it’s understandable why someone would think he was a capitalist roader in his time. The path he set the CPC on meant that the party had to walk a difficult tightrope, fooling the westerners by obfuscating their long-term plans while keeping the creeping liberalism at check. Whole the capacity of her administrators and will of her people played the main part, China couldn’t have made it to today without fortune by their side.
Tldr I agree but only with hindsight
isnt that true all the time though? i remember reading in john reeds book that what made the soldiers finally break for the october revolution was kerenski demanding and not asking. Up until then a lot were undecided and the revolution might have failed because the ones that were decided were stronger on kerenskis side? so much in life is up to chance that the best you can do is hedge your bets
I don’t think this is an ultra moment, so much as leaving out dialectics. Luck always factors into things, yeah, but the results speak for themselves because communist theory and practice works, and socialist projects continuously show this. The way they went about it could have gone wrong in a number of ways, sure, but so can working toward a revolution, so can the start of a revolution, so can the day to day mundanity of organizing a local party meeting, etc. It’s how you use the dialectical process to adapt to the shifting circumstances and predict outcomes that makes the difference. And of course the people themselves, the struggle they put into it every step of the way. But point being, Deng and whoever all agreed with his path were picking a path and trying it, and in some ways it worked and some ways it didn’t, and they have adjusted since. It’s that adjusting that is so pivotal.
Or to put it another way, while luck is always a factor in things, analysis can usually reveal that there’s less luck than it might seem at a glance and sometimes it’s a matter of how deep you get into the factors in play. Casinos play on this all the time by having the appearance of handing over outcomes to luck, but in reality, being heavily weighted toward the “house winning.”
I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
It was a leap of faith and incredible trust in the future generations. If that went as market reforms did elswhere we would be now cursing him as second Gorbachev (or Gorbachev as second Deng). And the world could be as well completely doomed with no socialist China.
Comrades need to look presentable and dress normally when they are representing Marxism in a public form. Part of being a communist is appealing to everyday people. There is a reason why every successful communist movement, from the Panthers to the Bolsheviks, presented themselves well and professionally.
This isn’t even really right-wing.
Yes. Optics means something to many people, and respecting that will help the movement
It is either:
Pornography should be illegal
or the Axis of Resistance should be supported.
Based
Based on all the discourse recently, my position that AI and LLMs should be outlawed.
I am an unapologetic Butlerian Jihadist
I understand the sentiment in your view, but I politely implore you to think of all the people and scientific advancement that A.I. is already helping.
There have been numerous cases of researchers using A.I., and the A.I. discovers numerous treatments for many types of diseases/illnesses, like types of cancer.
Or the A.I. come sup with new types of steel and building materials, that actually work.
I have a background in virtual screening software, where we just brute forced every compound that was commercially viable to produce (ZINC database) to see if it would bind to a cell receptor.
Having a new way to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks does not impress me.
But better AI should be able to pick stickier shits, which will save work in the long run. I agree that AI should not be used to hurt workers, but will be very important for fully automated luxury communism.
We are so far from automated luxury communism, and the idea that this technology would actually move us closer, is laughable. I honestly don’t believe that any technology has actually moved us closer to Communism. They seem to actually just concentrate more and more power in fewer and fewer hands.
Look if you want your fun little tech fetish, go right ahead, but don’t claim that LLMs are making the world better.
I watched the “Computer Revolution” and how it was going to fix EVERYTHING. It was going to transform the world.
All it did was just make a couple thousand people, more rich than was possible before.
All we are going to see is this buggy, hallucinating, flawed God take over everything, and like a mad God, it will make incomprehensible demands and pronouncements, and we’ll all be forced to obey them, while a handful of billionaires cook the planet and extract all the value, then we all die.
It’s the stupidest fucking outcome, and every person who keeps being a booster for LLMs and masks their little freakish obsession with them with flowerly marxist language makes me sick.
“actually it’s good that artists, programmers, and writers are being proletarianized, replaced with a shitty hallucinatin LLM that can’t actually do the work, but can bullshit it enough that management thinks they can layoff everyone and just pocket the savings”
Jesus Christ.
“Yes but we need the LLMs to destroy everyone’s livelihoods so that we can have our secular version of a Rapture (violent revolution where a bunch of people who never fucking shoot guns (the SRA is a joke) win against a superior force) and finally achieve fully automated luxury Communism”
Completely delusional
When the heck did I say that LLMs are going to run society? AI is much more than just LLMs, though LLMs are the manifestation of the current stage of development of AI.
Companies like Walmart are already using automated systems to optimize product distribution and maximize profit.[1] There is no reason why we can’t use improved versions of these AI systems to centrally plan country-wide economics in the future to maximize well-being and other democratically-defined goals.
Not sure if I’d go so far as “outlawed” (not really sure how that would be accomplished, at least in our current society), but I otherwise agree, and the discourse about the topic on this site has been genuinely upsetting the hell out of me lately, particularly because of much it truly is downplaying/denying the very real harm it’s causing, with some of it honestly coming across as cheering on said harm
So many of my friends and loved ones are artists too, so it’s particularly personal for me
While I strongly believe in rehabilitation, I think that convicted pedophiles/rapists should be put down. I’m not sure if I want would it to be the case for every single one, but it should be on the table.
I think that everyone should have the right to own a gun for self-defense purposes. At least, ideally.
I guess in a vacuum, I can understand that proper documentation could be required in order to vote. But only in a socialist society, and only when the state guarantees everyone can access their own documents freely and like candy.
How do you handle false convictions? They are obviously very rare but doesn’t it seem like executions should be avoided considering that they do in fact occur.
I’m just gonna say it, many of these really don’t feel like explicitly right wing ideals and more just “things that most people actually see are reasonable but like, wouldn’t be ok in a futuristic Star Trek level utopia,” but are things that many people will agree upon makes sense given the current material and social conditions of society.
And that’s a good thing thankfully, it would be pretty alarming if there were.
I think the government should have a balanced budget.
Gambling should be illegal
I believe in the death penalty as a security measure, but not as punishment, at least in theory.
In practice, the cost to society to ensure absolute certainty in guilt almost always far outweighs the security gain, so it doesn’t make sense. Maybe once a century.
Maybe there should be limits to kids being on social media and on the internet
I’ve thought about this before, and i think while limits are a good idea, most peoples approach to this would be a disaster.
Using the internet is a skill. One that most of us alive today have naturally developed over time. Kids need to be able to do this too. Otherwise once they become adults they will be very confused, and susceptible to scams. Much like how elderly people who didn’t use it as kids are now.
For that reason i think its necessary to have an internet that is just for kids. I’m not talking about like the typical youtube kids sort of thing. I mean like an entire separate net. Similar to the one everyone else uses, but with guardrails in place. Give them all a little currency of digital points they can use to buy things like cosmetics for their profiles, or even real things. Maybe stores could offer little treats, or toys to them for the points. Then let them have ways to scam each other, and ways to earn the points by doing things like watching educational content, or doing good in school.
Moderate it heavily for content. But not for how they act towards each other. It would allow them to experience being scammed and losing their hard earned points in a controlled environment without it being real money once they’re an adult. Things like bullying, while they should be monitored, i would allow to an extent. It’s going to happen on the real internet, and people need to get used to ignoring it. I would even argue professional adult educators should have fake profiles in this kid net where they play bad actors. They comment things like “This is stupid” under posts, they try to scam them, stuff like that. Then we foster a culture among the actual kids where they are good at spotting these scams, it could be taught in school then used in practice against the fake accounts, and dealing with bullying. Teach them when someone comments a mean thing you respond by refuting it, and complementing the person it was directed at.
I think this mainly comes down to one thing. Kids are not gonna stay kids. People these days tend to act like they will. Like sheltering them from everything is the answer. People learn through experience, and if you shelter people through their childhood they lose out on opportunities to learn things naturally like this. Then they become adults who are naive, and vulnerable.
So we simulate the real internet in a controlled environment. Foster a culture on this fake internet that is positive, and robust against bad actors. Then let it slowly bleed over into the real internet as these kids get older. I’d probably allow them on the real internet once they turn 15 or 16, and allow them to stay on the kid net until 18. So there would be a transitional period.
As for enforcing it the most i would do if a kid somehow like jailbroke their device and got on the main internet is some sort of school punishment. Extra work or something. Maybe involving computers since they have shown an interest in that by doing it. As for adults who get on the kid net unauthorized I’d treat it as a serious criminal offense. Depending on what they were doing anything from massive fines, to prison time.
Idk if it’s most but “Richmond is a hard road to travel” is a good tune.
I’m somewhat of an anti-natalist. I don’t think it’s necessarily smart to have children, only if you really want to but even then not too many.
I think there are too many rules when it comes to things like alcohol and cigarettes because I think it is the responsibility of the person itself and not the government. But fuck cigarette and alcohol advertising though
Lastly I don’t like it when people are too affectionate in public and think they should keep it to themselves
Agreed besides for the last point. I don’t mind holding hands and kisses on benches. I can see your point if you mean making out or further intimacy.
Every person I know with a child does not regret having them. However, from an outside perspective, every person I know with a child has had to eat some form of major shit because of the fact they had a responsibility for that child. You are easier to control with a child. That is a simple fact.
Either or not that is worth having a child in this current system is up to you and I don’t think anyone should be limited from having a child.
100% on that last point LMAO, not the rest though
Not sure if this counts as right wing, but I sympathize with some of Dostoevsky’s philosophy. If we look at how fascism triumphed over socialism, there was an irrational and emotional component to it that drew people in, which in some ways socialism fails to do because it’s rooted in objectiveness. And I believe Dostoevsky touches on this in his works where he has characters that are disillusioned with society but also disillusioned with the revolutionary movement, because it all boils down to objectiveness. I believe he is a reactionary, but also in real life he was part of revolutionary movements so he has real lived experience of what it’s like to try to change society, which I find interesting.
That being said I do think socialism can have a subjective appeal to the masses, in that it aims to ensure prosperity and liberation for all.
as far as the western political spectrum is concerned, I would say a strong belief that you should maintain a close relationships with family even if they hold beliefs that are reactionary or culturally conservative as long as they aren’t overtly hurting you. it’s better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on. isolation is one of the main things that leads to the type of derangement you see in the modern western fascist movements. obviously there is lots of nuance to this but generally speaking
This is essentially saying that the western patriarchal family unit is a force against fascism. If that were the case, then fascists would be against “the family”, but exactly the opposite is true. You also more or less directly say that compromising with reactionaries will somehow make people less fascist, which is ridiculous. Someone who’s estranged from their family specifically because they’re reactionary isn’t going to somehow become more fascist as a result of that, that doesn’t make any sense. A deranged ultra or something, perhaps, but that’s not the same thing.
I get that this is a thread about your most right-wing opinion, but yeah, this idea is reactionary as hell and trying to clumsily graft on an argument about isolation doesn’t make it any better. Isolation is deranging and that is a societal problem, but this idea is absolutely not a solution to that. If anything it’s a description of the problem - yes, a society where community and public spaces have been destroyed makes for a situation where this “family or isolation” dichotomy exists, and that can lead to derangement and ultimately fascism. The solution to this problem is to fix that situation, not decide that it’s a good thing.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. I’m not making a “thing good” or “thing bad” argument. Like I’m not saying “the family as it has been constructed under capitalism is as force for good and should be protected at all costs”
it’s better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on
what I’m specifically talking about is in a context that is totally removed from any real political action, which is most conversations with my reactionary family members. at least in my context they aren’t materially opposing me in any real way, they just saw some shit on facebook and are vomiting it me. what I mean by find a synthesis is not find the direct center point between my opinion and theirs(my opinion being based in reality and theirs not) but instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs. the thing about peoples insane right-wing delusions is most of the time its not grounded in anything other then rhetoric, at least here in north America.
(sorry if I didn’t use the quote function right, I’m very new to lemmy)
instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs
What is an “aesthetic compromise” in this context? Do you have an example?
It sounds like you’re just doing “tolerate people’s insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs” but obscured with lots of fancy words.
Propaganda has a very real effect on material circumstances anyway. To suggest otherwise in 2025 is wild.
What is an “aesthetic compromise” in this context? Do you have an example?
sure, I’ll use a personal example. I was talking with a relative of mine who hates rich people but loves elon musk because he owns the libs or whatever. instead of beginning the interaction by disagreeing about elon musk being a super cool guy who’s smart and awesome, I started the conversation from the perspective of agreeing with her about how much the rich suck and libs suck and yada-yada-yada but the place it ended at was that elon also sucks and that they should value less the performative aspect of our modern political climate more the substantive. so not an aesthetic compromise in the scene of a middle ground between aesthetics but the aesthetic of compromise itself. basically what I’m saying is just chill the fuck out and talk to people who you have a long relationship with instead of cutting them out in some sort of purity testing way.
tolerate people’s insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs
that’s not at ALL what I’m saying. I’m saying challenge those beliefs in a way the is effective. thinking about social interactions in a punishment/reward way isn’t very effective in my experience. Also some family systems are much worse then others and some ARE in fact good and something to be protected, specifically indigenous family systems should be protected as they are to a large extent inherently anti-colonial/anti-imperialist.
sorry if this still doesn’t make scene I’m not really used to having a conversation in this format so I might not be representing my point of view in the best way. please try to be charitable when interpreting what I’m saying.
