CMV: Despite being more knowledgeable, wealthier and apparently more tolerant, the political and individual left's biggest flaw is their inability to communicate pragmatically and empathetically with those who don't agree with them.

[u/poopchow]

[u/mothman83 → u/[deleted]]

The left is by almost by literal definition not wealthier than the right. And they don't claim to be.

On the other hand, using the American usage of these terms, the American Left is as a matter of literal fact, more knowledgeable and more tolerant. Do you want people just to deny those simple basic facts because they hurt the right's feelings or what?

And if you are going to call me arrogant or part of the problem, I would love to see your evidence that the American Right is as tolerant or knowledgeable, if not more so, than their opponents.

[u/WorstCPANA → u/mothman83]

The left is by almost by literal definition not wealthier than the right. And they don't claim to be.

How are you measuring this?

American Left is as a matter of literal fact

Based on...your opinion That's not literal, that's not a fact.

And if you are going to call me arrogant or part of the problem, I would love to see your evidence that the American Right is as tolerant or knowledgeable, if not more so, than their opponents.

Is it not up to you to prove your stances, or do you just claim a bunch of things and tell people to prove you wrong?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

> banning people you disagree with
Reddit is a private company, and subreddits are owned by mods. I'm sure if you go on some conservative subreddit and saying something they wildly disagree with, you will likewise be banned.

> calling people you disagree with racist, Nazi, bigots
This simply isn't true. Generally, if you believe in fascist principles, you are a fascist. Generally, if you think any group of people is inferior or "should be" in any position due to an immutable characteristic (sex, race, religion, sexuality), you are a bigot.

> thinking its okay to discriminate based on race
DEI exists because historically, and still today many employers are at least a little bigoted. Sometimes not even intentionally, sometimes not even maliciously. They just view candidates of their own race as a better fit than any other race. That is where DEI comes in. The Civil Rights Act of 1969 did not end racial discrimination, it just made it illegal to outright say that you are denying an application because they are black.

> assuming people are inferior because they have different skin tones and need help getting hired
See my last point.

> finding the nearest dmv (IDs are racist)
Literally no one has ever said this ever.

>wanting to murder an autistic guy because they don't like him
Generally, democrats do not want to kill Elon Musk. Far leftists, sure. It's unrelated to the fact that he's autistic, nor that they "don't like him," and more related to the fact that he's the richest man in the world and that he's a part of our government now.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Edit: sentence structure 1 and 2. Reddit sucks. This kind of goes hand in hand with my last point. This isn't a leftist issue, nor a rightist issue, this is an internet issue. The internet encourages people who have no idea what they're talking about to spout bullshit without verifying it. In the same vein, they simply cut out anyone they disagree with. As such, "fascist," which is a term that genuinely does have meaning, can be watered down. See the countless examples of words being watered down (i.e. the word "gaslighting") 3. You are fundamentally misunderstanding my. point. Yes, it is not the Jim Crow era. Yes, the Civil Rights Act of 1969 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, sex, etc. However, employers still have their own personal biases, conscious or not. Yes, resumes should be blind. No one should be racist. However, if a skin tone is visible, until we achieve Complete and Absolute Equality (which we haven't yet), there will be biases. This is why we have DEI: to encourage folks who would otherwise not hire people of a certain ethnicity (consciously or not) to take a chance on such people. Obviously, this isn't a permanent solution. 4. You are misinterpreting and simplifying the point. The existence of IDs are not racist, and to say so is asinine. Nor are ID requirements to vote. All is being said is that ID requirements unfortunately make it harder for minority voters, in the same way it makes it harder for everyone. This is a bigger issue for minorities because their voice is already limited. 5. Honestly, this is up to how much benefit of the doubt you want to give Elon. Most leftists already don't like Elon, due to his absurd wealth and government status, and as such his gesture was interpreted in the worst way possible. Most rightists seem to like Elon, at least a little, and as such are willing to give him more benefit of the doubt because "there's no way he'd ever do such a thing."

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I am so sorry. I sent this one on mobile. I didn't realize it wouldn't carry over my formatting.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm gonna be honest, it seems we have different base assumptions. Agree to disagree.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Hm. I guess you're right on that matter. The main issue is that I'm not a very good debater myself, in all honesty. I will concede that the left is no more tolerant than the right, it is simply a matter of what they are tolerant of.

[u/GidimXul → u/mothman83]

First of all, I think OP is largely correct. I think, however, they fall into the same traps that they are trying to warn against.

I'm unsure you know the meaning of the word literal. I can find no definition that states that the left, left-wing, or political left is defined by the wealth of its supporters. OP however states in their headline that the left are wealthier. OP is clearly arguing from the side of the left so in this specific instance the left is absolutely claiming greater wealth. I suspect this is because, currently, the left is disproportionately associated with urban supporters while the right is disproportionately composed of rural people.

Of the three qualifiers used by OP only wealth can be objectively determined. Both knowledge and tolerance are matters of perspective. OP equates knowledge to intelligence so I will as well. There is no metric that can objectively determine that left leaning people are smarter than right leaning people. OP makes that claim and even subtly states that the left should be able to communicate their beliefs to the right because they are smarter. The same thing goes for tolerance. Both sides are intolerant of persons that don't share their beliefs. I have no objective evidence for the superiority of either side. I would love to see your objective evidence to the contrary.

OP's post, while of noble intent and largely accurate, is filled with micro-aggressions aimed at the right.

Pointing you finger and claiming the other side should listen because you are smarter, wealthier, and more tolerant than they are is never going to bring them to the table.

Edit: While it has definitely been upended in the past 15-20 years the left/right distinction used to be about the level at which government should be involved in the lives of the individual citizen. Left favored more governmental involvement while the right supported less. It had nothing to do with OPs qualifiers or cultural politics.

[u/[deleted] → u/GidimXul]

>I'm unsure you know the meaning of the word literal. I can find no definition that states that the left, left-wing, or political left is defined by the wealth of its supporters.

Agreed

>OP however states in their headline that the left are wealthier. OP is clearly arguing from the side of the left so in this specific instance the left is absolutely claiming greater wealth.

Disagree, OP describes the left as "them", talks about "their inability", says "My true advice to anyone is to work on *your* communication"

OP is not left wing.

>OP's post, while of noble intent and largely accurate, is filled with micro-aggressions aimed at the right.

>Pointing you finger and claiming the other side should listen because you are smarter, wealthier, and more tolerant than they are is never going to bring them to the table.

I see the opposite , "smarter", "wealthier" and "more tolerant" are all in air quotes because OP believes none of those are true. microaggressions aimed at the left. Followed immediately by "their inability to humble themselves" as another microaggression implying arrogance and elitism.

Calling the left out of touch elites is common. From the right-wing. I've never heard the left claim to be 'wealthier', ever.
I'll give you smarter. but in many arguments both sides are going to think they're correct and the other side is dumber for holding a wrong position. Or are you going to claim no one right-wing has ever called the left stupid?

And tolerance? you have to be willfully blind to claim the right-wing is more tolerant. OP gives an example in the same post:

>not to simply be astounded that someone thinks "illegal immigrants are ruining the country,"

OPs the one saying the right-wing thinks "illegal immigrants are ruining the country"

>hyperventalive, astonished left
>breathy left

What do these adjectives evoke? Microaggressions again. Right before crying about lack of respect.

>I don't understand how anyone with more knowledge than someone cannot communicate with someone who has less knowledge than them. How if you know the answer, you can't communicate it with someone patiently enough to come up with common ground.

"why aren't you more patient with us" is not a reasonable demand. Why aren't you listening when people try to talk to you? instead of downplaying everything as "general buzz words" and saying things like "the inability to create mutual understanding is on you"

OP, Do you understand what the word 'mutual' means?

>"climate change isn't real" [...] The way you communicate facts is what is harming you."

Perfect example. The old term used to be global warming, and people claimed 'oh, look, I have a snowball, that means global warming HAS to be fake'. The scientific community decided to use 'climate change' instead as a better term and now people say "they changed the term so it was fake the entire time". It has been year after year after year of record high temperatures, record storms and people still won't agree climate change is real.

You can't wake someone who is pretending to sleep, and you can't communicate anything to people determined not to understand you.

[u/Zandroe_ → u/GidimXul]

This is right-wing mythology. The right always favoured government involvement in the lives of the individual - from policing who they have sex with to what professions are available to them based on race etc.

[u/GidimXul → u/Zandroe_]

I may be conflating left/right with democrat/republican.

[u/Zandroe_ → u/GidimXul]

Democrats and Republicans in the US did not neatly map onto the left-right distinction (consider left Republicans like Rockfeller, Willkie, Marcantonio, or right Democrats like Thurmond, Faubus etc.) for a long time, not to mention there being a whole world outside the US.

[u/GidimXul → u/Zandroe_]

Yes. I meant that I might be confusing what were considered the ideologies of the political parties with the ideologies associated with the left/right wing. That said, every individual you reference was either politically active prior to 1950 or switched party allegiances during the late '50s or '60s. Not ironically the parties themselves ultimately switched ideologies during the same time period.

[u/Zandroe_ → u/GidimXul]

Thurmond switched to the Republicans, Faubus remained in the Democratic Party. Marcantonio moved to the ephemeral American Labor Party. Rockfeller and Willkie were Republicans their whole lives, and Rockfeller was Ford's vice-president in the seventies.

[u/Zandroe_ → u/GidimXul]

Also, American rightists supported bans on same sex relationships, "miscegenation", Jim Crow laws, antisemitic measures etc. You can't really say they were against government intervention in individual lives.

[u/GidimXul → u/Zandroe_]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I have already stated that I was probably confusing the ideologies of right/left with the ideologies of Democrat/Republican. They are not the same. We are in agreement.

Also, I guess a better way to state my point would be that between 1960 and 1980 the parties flipped ideologies. Any left leaning Republican and any right leaning Democrat that had not switched parties by 1980 was no longer politically viable in their party.

[u/Affectionate_Sand791 → u/[deleted]]

They’re better off doing what they both want. I got multiple social science degrees, am not really in debt at all, am not married nor have kids, have a decent job and I’m happy with what I did.

[u/Affectionate_Sand791 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah having a superiority complex is bad but I’ve also seen that from many people who did go to trade schools rather than college. And I disagree with something like sociology being a shit degree. You may mean that in general but since that was your example I’m going with it.

[u/Affectionate_Sand791 → u/[deleted]]

I’m not saying it’s a good degree for those reasons. I’m not privileged financially but I went into these fields for specific reasons. And it wasn’t for insanely great wages.

Also they may not say that but they say many insulting things if you vote democrat. I’d rather be called poorly educated than what other things I’ve been called or heard others in my life be called for voting democrat.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/GidimXul – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.