A guy on there told me that I should thank liberals for the Civil Rights Act, and when I pointed to the letter from A Birmingham Jail, his response was, “and yet they passed the Civil Rights Act a year later. Curious, no?” Like…yeah dumbass, because actual progressives kept pressuring them publicly, like King did in the Birmingham letter.

Uh…Political Memes on .world is not socialist. Much more of a, “vote blue, no matter who,” and, “but her emails,” vibe over there.

Watchmen is a perfect example of how Zach Snyder doesn’t understand what he’s adapting. The original story is a deconstruction of the superhero, showing how sad and broken these characters would be in real life: right-wing murders, rapists, schluby middle-age guys with ED…Snyder takes those characters and films them like they’re cool and bad-ass. Aesthetically, it’s a beautiful, shot-for-shot adaptation, but at no point did it occur to him that the guy in a trench coat muttering to himself about filth and whores wasn’t supposed to be cool. It didn’t occur to him that a group of people who completely fail to stop the villian weren’t supposed to have action sequences straight out of The Matrix. It didn’t occur to him that a story about what superheroes would look like in the real world should be realistic.

The part that truly enraged me was a small moment at the very end. In the comic books, after everyone leaves, Dr. Manhattan goes to see Ozymandias one last time before leaving Earth forever. Ozymandias asks him if he was right in the end, and Manhattan tells him, “Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.” Ozymandias asks what he means by this, but Manhattan leaves without answering. In the movie, Snyder replaces Dr. Manhattan with Owlman in this interaction. Ozymandias’ story ends with a character who is essentially God telling him that his entire plan was pointless, and Snyder swaps out God for the story’s everyman character. It’s a perfect distillation Snyder’s inability to understand even the simplest subtext.

Well, take that, established rules of comedy!

…The previous sentence was a reference to common idiom, “If you have to explain the joke, then it’s not funny,” while the current sentence is an example of irony. Here, I am not using irony as it’s colloquially used, which could best be described as a funny coincidence, but rather by its literally definition of, “the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention.” While the literal intention of my words is an explanation of my first and second sentences, the non-literal intention is a continuation of the premise that I am over-explaining my own jokes, thereby using irony to create what some would call a, “meta,” joke.

The point of the comment wasn’t to blame the drag queens. It was to reverse the implicit shame of being, “caught,” that’s in the title, giving the connotation that it’s shameful or embarrassing to associate with the GOP candidate, not the other way around. It was just a little quip that I’m sure I’ve made much funnier with this explanation.

I think you mean, “Drag queens caught partying with GOP candidate who called them pedophiles.”

You:

Wikipedia agrees with me

Wikipedia:

Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole or certain social hierarchies…Ideologies considered to be left-wing vary greatly depending on the placement along the political spectrum in a given time and place…In addition, the term left-wing has also been applied to a broad range of culturally liberal social movements, including the civil rights movement, feminist movement, LGBT rights movement, abortion-rights movements, multiculturalism, anti-war movement and environmental movement as well as a wide range of political parties.

Anyway, we’re done here.

You are welcome to disagree with it, but your definition is not shared by Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, or Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica comes closest to agreeing with you by saying that, “Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world,” but it does not limit its definition of the political left to socialist and communist ideologies, and it certainly doesn’t say, “Left wing means ending Capitalism, not just 'reigning it in.” So maybe next time, before you jump into someone’s comments to tell them they’re using a word wrong, check if they’re actually using it wrong or simply using it in a way that doesn’t align with your personal beliefs.

I’ve run out of ways to say this, so I’ll just reiterate it one more time and be done with it; the meaning of left-wing is not that rigid and will vary based on context. It does not specifically mean revolutionary or anti-capitalist. It generally means a set of social or economic principles aimed at creating a more egalitarian society, but what that means in terms of policy will depend greatly based on the culture and system of government in place. Do I think it sucks ass that the American liberals are considered left-wing in the U.S.? Yeah. Do they meet my definition of left-wing? Fuck no. But I don’t get to define that broad term based on my personal standards.

Right. So, you want to take the term, “left-wing,” which has held different meanings in different contexts over more than two centuries and redefine as exclusively anti-capitalist, so you can tell liberals that they’re not actually left-wing. Now that’s an attempt to shift the Overton Window.

Left-wing has always had a loose, relative meaning, and arguing otherwise isn’t attempting to stop the Overton Window from shifting. It’s just an attempt to gatekeep who gets to be a, “real,” leftist.

…and Sanders himself defines Democratic Socialism as the completion of the New Deal reforms, not a gradual transition to a socialist economic system. There’s a difference between the Overton Window shifting and a gradual change in definition over generations, but if you want definitions to remain entirely static, then we’re both using left-wing incorrectly, as it’s, “real,” definition is opposing monarchy’s veto power over parliament.

“Left-wing,” is a very broad term. In the Weimar Republic, yes, the left-wing alternative to right-wing populism was communism. In America today, Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders are the left-wing alternative. If that doesn’t fall in line with your definition of, "left-wing,’ that’s fine, but it most people wouldn’t define it as exclusively anti-capitalist ideologies.

Then you’re a good person, which is a statistical minority. Most people will never intentionally vote against their economic self-interests by raising their own taxes (although you can trick them into voting against their economic self interests; Republicans have been doing that for years by using racist dog-whistles to attack entitlement programs and pushing discredited trickle-down economic theories).

Actually, youth turnout is pretty high right now, with record turnout being set recently for both midterms and presidential elections. In 2020, turnout for the under thirty crowd was 50%, a possible new record, and it was 30% and 27% in 2018 and 2022 respectively, which are 30 year highs. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party leadership prefers centrist candidates, and frequently puts its thumb on the scale to ensure that moderate candidates win, so that turnout isn’t translating into progressive politics.

Funny enough, just after I made the original comment, I read an article about how the youngest U.S. voters are starting to lean further right than before, so it’s possible the ship has sailed on this all together. Given how aggressively the right wing has been to trying to indoctrinate young voters, who are watching Democrats successfully suppress left-wing populism while Republicans embrace right-wing populism, it’s possible the youth are deciding that the far-right offers them only chance for change. I hope not, though, because then we’re screwed.

Oh yeah, that’s definitely why older folks are socially conservative, although usually when I hear people say this (and definitely in the context of this meme) they’re talking about becoming fiscally conservative.

Honestly, that makes sense to me. It seems like when economic systems start breaking down for people, they turn to populism. It’s either left-wing populism, which argues for reigning in the excesses of capitalism, or right-wing populism, which scapegoats minority or immigrant groups. Right now, the youth in the U.S. are interested in left-wing populism, but right-wing populism (AKA Trumpism) is the only thing making it into the political mainstream.

Whenever people say that you grow more conservative when you get older, they’re working from the premise that you’ll grow more affluent and comfortable later in life. For Americans, that just isn’t true anymore. Wages are mostly stagnant, home ownership is much less attainable, and cost of living is at an all time high. Yet for some reason, pundits just can’t figure out why millenials aren’t getting more conservative as they age, or why zoomers appear to be following this trend.

Most people are referring to the fact that boomers were born into the strongest social safety net in American history and then allowed Regan to gut it for short-term gains. The original aphorism may not be true, but I can’t think of a generation it applies to more.

I really don’t understand why they’re simultaneously arguing that they need access to copyrighted works in order to train their AI while also dropping their non-profit status. If they were at least ostensibly a non-profit, they could pretend that their work was for the betterment of humanity or whatever, but now they’re basically saying, “exempt us from this law so we can maximize our earnings.” …and, honestly, our corrupt legislators wouldn’t have a problem with that were it not for the fact that bigger corporations with more lobbying power will fight against it.