Make a pledge to stop throwing insults across the political spectrum

[mistymoney]

Agreed, the insults are pretty childish.

What we need is a rational, good-faith movement on the right side of the spectrum. I give you Mitt Romney as an example.  I disagreed with almost every political position Mr. Romney took, but for what it's worth, I believe he loves his country and that he believes his ideas are in the best interests of the nation and its people.  This is not the case with Trump and the MAGAs.  If you understand the difference between Romney and Trump, you will understand why we can and should be civil toward Romney, even if we have rational disagreements, but it is less clear how we can be "civil" toward Trump / MAGAs without tolerating the intolerable.

Adam Kinzinger and others are laying the foundation for this. I don't think the current GOP is going to accomodate such a thing within their ranks, so will be interesting to see where this goes.

Anyone who at this point is pro-trump: there really isn't anything to say to or about them. Anyone supposedly conservative who isn't fighting against this faction is as bad as those who are in it. And it is not about politics, as the OP and others would suggest. Trump attempted an insurrection, he is a traitor, and his party has been trying to cover it up and his followers don't care or don't care to know, and anyone who isn't seeing this and calling it out within their supposed political party is culpable, and calling it politics and political idfferences and name calling is just another attempt to distract from the fact that a president of the united states attempted a coup, attempted election interference, attempted to disrupt the peaceful transference of power and this traitor is still being endorced and coddled by his party and his voting base.

You want polite discourse on the advantages and disadvantages of fiscal conservatism vs liberalism? Clean your f*cking house. Have a platform. Have a plan. Prosecute the traitors to the fullest extent of the law.

Until then, what the hell is there to discuss - polite or otherwise?

[Just Joe]

My coworker had some things to say in support of Trump this morning. Basically they take Trump at Trump's word. And they believe Biden and his son are corrupt and untouchable.

All that tells me is that my coworker is gullible. Coworker will never do the homework to have an informed opinion. It reflects their career and home life. They won't do a deep dive on anything. Good person, but quite uninformed. I wish they didn't vote.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

That being said, it's often done on this board, and it definitely keeps me from commenting and providing a more conservative perspective on issues, because I know it will go beyond the issue being debated into assertions of why I have certain opinions and some overarching assumed goal I'm supposedly trying to achieve or whatever. It makes a good echo chamber if that's the goal, but if you're trying for dialogue with the hope of encouraging others to consider and be swayed by your opinion, it is an impediment to achieving that.

Given the makeup of our forum, most of the women here will probably tend to the more liberal side of politics, because we are generally well-educated and that is where well-educated women tend to end up.

Most of the non-US commenters will seem quite far to the left to Americans, because our politics just generally are more to the left.  You know, universal health care, good maternity leave, low cost higher education, stricter gun legislation, that sort of thing. So if you want us to listen to the viewpoint of a conservative American, we will certainly listen, but we will most likely not agree.  Your right seems just too far right to us.

As an older Canadian who has voted Progressive Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic Party and Green over the course of many federal elections, you can see that I am not wedded to one political party.  Presently I would happily vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party.  Unfortunately the Conservative Party of Canada has fiscal policies I can't agree with and is socially very conservative.

I'm assuming you are in the US?  Because conservative USA is very conservative.  So when you are bringing up conservative topics, your main audience for actually changing views is likely to be your fellow Americans.  Given the horrible behaviour of the Republicans these days (yes sedition is relevant here, as is Roe versus Wade and the women who will die because of it) you will need to be particularly persuasive.  And for those of us not in the US, the best you can do is help us understand where you are coming from, but you are not likely to change our views.

Sorry about that  (obligatory Canadian comment).

I should have clarified liberal from a US perspective. That was what I was meaning.

Responding to your post and Metalcat's post together on this one.

First, I enjoy a good lively debate on things. I've enjoyed either participating or just watching debates on here about numerous issues including ones that were mentioned about universal healthcare, higher education funding, etc. I mean some of the very first threads I commented on MMM before the 100 post off topic rule were on gun control, and I have refined and modified my viewpoint and perspectives a decent amount because of the discussions on these topics. So I don't mind a lively debate at all.

I'll also note that I haven't thought about things from the perspective of getting harassed from the conservative side of things on the board. I'll have to make sure I never fall into that category.

I also don't expect to change minds, especially on the issues you mentioned. Maybe plant some seeds like others have with their perspectives they've provided, but I'm not expecting people to agree with me.

The difference I'm talking about that I see a lot for certain issues, such as abortion as you mentioned, is not lively debate or firm difference of opinion and disagreement. It's assumptions of motivations. It's not just, I'm right because of points a, b, and c, or do you realize that these are consequences of your opinions or whatever. It's "oh, you think this..... You must think this because you really want this other thing to happen or hate these people or something like that."

I've gotten this vibe either indirectly or directly expressed many times, and it's a sure fire way to shut down dialogue more so than even name calling, to me. If you (general you not specifically R63) already know not just what you think but what I think and why i think it, too, what's the point of even talking?

[Metalcat]

That being said, it's often done on this board, and it definitely keeps me from commenting and providing a more conservative perspective on issues, because I know it will go beyond the issue being debated into assertions of why I have certain opinions and some overarching assumed goal I'm supposedly trying to achieve or whatever. It makes a good echo chamber if that's the goal, but if you're trying for dialogue with the hope of encouraging others to consider and be swayed by your opinion, it is an impediment to achieving that.

Given the makeup of our forum, most of the women here will probably tend to the more liberal side of politics, because we are generally well-educated and that is where well-educated women tend to end up.

Most of the non-US commenters will seem quite far to the left to Americans, because our politics just generally are more to the left.  You know, universal health care, good maternity leave, low cost higher education, stricter gun legislation, that sort of thing. So if you want us to listen to the viewpoint of a conservative American, we will certainly listen, but we will most likely not agree.  Your right seems just too far right to us.

As an older Canadian who has voted Progressive Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic Party and Green over the course of many federal elections, you can see that I am not wedded to one political party.  Presently I would happily vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party.  Unfortunately the Conservative Party of Canada has fiscal policies I can't agree with and is socially very conservative.

I'm assuming you are in the US?  Because conservative USA is very conservative.  So when you are bringing up conservative topics, your main audience for actually changing views is likely to be your fellow Americans.  Given the horrible behaviour of the Republicans these days (yes sedition is relevant here, as is Roe versus Wade and the women who will die because of it) you will need to be particularly persuasive.  And for those of us not in the US, the best you can do is help us understand where you are coming from, but you are not likely to change our views.

Sorry about that  (obligatory Canadian comment).

I should have clarified liberal from a US perspective. That was what I was meaning.

Responding to your post and Metalcat's post together on this one.

First, I enjoy a good lively debate on things. I've enjoyed either participating or just watching debates on here about numerous issues including ones that were mentioned about universal healthcare, higher education funding, etc. I mean some of the very first threads I commented on MMM before the 100 post off topic rule were on gun control, and I have refined and modified my viewpoint and perspectives a decent amount because of the discussions on these topics. So I don't mind a lively debate at all.

I'll also note that I haven't thought about things from the perspective of getting harassed from the conservative side of things on the board. I'll have to make sure I never fall into that category.

I also don't expect to change minds, especially on the issues you mentioned. Maybe plant some seeds like others have with their perspectives they've provided, but I'm not expecting people to agree with me.

The difference I'm talking about that I see a lot for certain issues, such as abortion as you mentioned, is not lively debate or firm difference of opinion and disagreement. It's assumptions of motivations. It's not just, I'm right because of points a, b, and c, or do you realize that these are consequences of your opinions or whatever. It's "oh, you think this..... You must think this because you really want this other thing to happen or hate these people or something like that."

I've gotten this vibe either indirectly or directly expressed many times, and it's a sure fire way to shut down dialogue more so than even name calling, to me. If you (general you not specifically R63) already know not just what you think but what I think and why i think it, too, what's the point of even talking?

This place has calmed substantially over the years, it used to be much, much nastier. It wasn't too long ago that in a political debate about feminism (the argument being essentially that feminism was bullshit) that I shared my personal experience as a sexual assault victim and was belittled for it.

We've come a long, long way in terms of respect for opposing opinions in a time when the world has gotten much worse at it.

[Metta]

I don't post a lot these days, but I pledge to avoid these insults when I'm posting and ask others to do the same. If you find it silly, you can skip the pledge and just do it when you post. Maybe it will make a small difference. These forums are better than most of the internet, but we can always work on improving. Thanks

[This may be a naive post, but it is sincere, so please be kind in your responses.]

This is actually the exact reason I chose the name Metta as my screen name here. It was to remind myself to be kind in my comments and compassionate when reading other people’s comments. To not assume I understood what they they were saying and to ask myself, “Does this add light or just heat to the discussion?”

This is also why I do not often post. If my post is just to say, “Yeah!” or “You ignorant <insert word here>” then I’m not contributing what I want to contribute. I also don’t like insults. I won’t use them and I avoid listening to people who do.

I agree that the MMM forums are better than most. Love and kisses to the moderators that make it so.

[SotI]

@Metta: This is what I also had in mind when I wrote that I aim at more kind speech and maintain goodwill to those whose opinion I may not share.
 

So I am not for name-calling*, but if someone posts a massively misogynistic/racist/fascist post, I will call them on it.  It is not insulting or name-calling to react by saying that post was misogynistic/racist/fascist and are those the poster's actual misogynistic/racist/fascist views, because if so they are misogynistic/racist/fascist.

I think it's not controversial (for me at last) to call out "bad" behaviour. I just try to distinguish between acts/behaviour and labelling of a person. I try to avoid placing ppl into fixed categories.

By and large, reading the commentd here, I feel that my "European Liberal" perspective does not have a proper representation in the US. So, I may miss certain connotations, of course.

[RetiredAt63]

@Metta: This is what I also had in mind when I wrote that I aim at more kind speech and maintain goodwill to those whose opinion I may not share.
 

So I am not for name-calling*, but if someone posts a massively misogynistic/racist/fascist post, I will call them on it.  It is not insulting or name-calling to react by saying that post was misogynistic/racist/fascist and are those the poster's actual misogynistic/racist/fascist views, because if so they are misogynistic/racist/fascist.

I think it's not controversial (for me at last) to call out "bad" behaviour. I just try to distinguish between acts/behaviour and labelling of a person. I try to avoid placing ppl into fixed categories.

By and large, reading the commentd here, I feel that my "European Liberal" perspective does not have a proper representation in the US. So, I may miss certain connotations, of course.

Plus it is more productive, potentially.  If you react to something with "I'm so sorry to hear you say that, I hope it didn't come out the way you meant it to because it sounded really sexist/racist/whatever" you give them a chance to retract, or at least think before opening their mouth.

The "Left-leaning" American Democratic Party is basically a bit right of centre by Canadian standards, so your European liberal perspective is flaming socialist almost communist radicalism in the US.

[Ron Scott]

European liberal perspective is flaming socialist almost communist radicalism in the US.

I don’t think that’s true. A minority may think about it that way and the politicians/media use that rhetoric in specific situations to further their agendas, but I think the vast majority here have a reasonable level of respect for the diversity of approaches in The West. I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

Each approach has its strengths and shortcomings, and I’m just glad the countries in this discussion are all on the same side. If all of them were cookie cutter look-alikes it’d be a boring world.

[GuitarStv]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

I've heard the term 'communist' used to describe exactly that many, many times from right wing Americans.  Or they simply fail to distinguish between 'socialist' and 'communist' at all.

[Metalcat]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

I've heard the term 'communist' used to describe exactly that many, many times from right wing Americans.  Or they simply fail to distinguish between 'socialist' and 'communist' at all.

Yeah, it happens to us Canadians all the time. It's ridiculous how many Americans refer to our system as 'communist." We're not even socialist, we just have more social programs than the US.

[nereo]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

I've heard the term 'communist' used to describe exactly that many, many times from right wing Americans.  Or they simply fail to distinguish between 'socialist' and 'communist' at all.

Yeah, it happens to us Canadians all the time. It's ridiculous how many Americans refer to our system as 'communist." We're not even socialist, we just have more social programs than the US.

Yup. Having lived and worked in both Canada and the UK, I frequently encounter the communist label whenever I describe the health care system or parliamentary government. Ironically, in a great many ways Canada has more equal representation for its citizens and better upward mobility, which are concepts that my own family members cannot wrap their heads around because they believe only the US is a true democracy.
Communism still is the boogey man, and it gets tossed about anytime the government is involved with something, even when the decision to give the government those responsibilities was through a free and fair democratic process and when it continues to be popular.

[Ron Scott]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

Having lived and worked in both Canada and the UK, I frequently encounter the communist label whenever I describe the health care system or parliamentary government. Ironically, in a great many ways Canada has more equal representation for its citizens and better upward mobility, which are concepts that my own family members cannot wrap their heads around because they believe only the US is a true democracy.

Yeah, but it is a minority—mostly uneducated Fox News adherents—who I think this is coming from.

The telling feature of this group is their pride in mouthing the talking points of the day without being able to present a logical defense of them.

Some of this tribe are also supportive of authoritarian dictatorships, even Putin, and may claim that America is not a democracy, but “a Republic”—all without being able to coherently define any of the terms. You basically said it yourself LOL that they actually confuse a parliamentary system with communism. Pro tip: Change the subject to monster trucks.

The populist, far right trend is the latest flavor here but it’s hardly limited to America, as most Europeans know too well. It may be tempting to define America by it’s assholes but, like they say, everybody’s got one.

[Kris]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

I've heard the term 'communist' used to describe exactly that many, many times from right wing Americans.  Or they simply fail to distinguish between 'socialist' and 'communist' at all.

Yeah. Among the right-wingers I know, socialism and communism are basically synonyms.

[Metalcat]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

Having lived and worked in both Canada and the UK, I frequently encounter the communist label whenever I describe the health care system or parliamentary government. Ironically, in a great many ways Canada has more equal representation for its citizens and better upward mobility, which are concepts that my own family members cannot wrap their heads around because they believe only the US is a true democracy.

Yeah, but it is a minority—mostly uneducated Fox News adherents—who I think this is coming from.

The telling feature of this group is their pride in mouthing the talking points of the day without being able to present a logical defense of them.

Some of this tribe are also supportive of authoritarian dictatorships, even Putin, and may claim that America is not a democracy, but “a Republic”—all without being able to coherently define any of the terms. You basically said it yourself LOL that they actually confuse a parliamentary system with communism. Pro tip: Change the subject to monster trucks.

The populist, far right trend is the latest flavor here but it’s hardly limited to America, as most Europeans know too well. It may be tempting to define America by it’s assholes but, like they say, everybody’s got one.

You said you don't think Americans believe this, a bunch of us have told you our personal experience with many Americans believing this.

You can't then move the goal posts and say "well yeah, but that's only the Americans who believe stupid shit like that who believe that."

It's cool that you don't think that way and perhaps don't surround yourself with people who think that way, but me and my colleagues are very accustomed to hearing "communism" thrown around by American medical professionals every time we're in the US for conferences and continuing education.

So it's not uncommon and it's not just uneducated morons, it's also doctoral educated, high earning, business owning professionals who say this nonsense.

[nereo]

It would be a mistake to dismiss them as uneducated, unthinking rednecks. A large chunk of the US population cannot differentiate between communism and socialism, probably because we spend decades vilifying both. We’ve also pushed the “slippery slope” fallacy on everything from health care to gun control by the right and net neutrality and government oversight of all colors by both “sides” - its far too common to hear critics deride these as things “Only seen in communist” countries.

[iris lily]

I am always cordial to those with the right opinions.

Haha touche’

[iris lily]

I've gotten this vibe either indirectly or directly expressed many times, and it's a sure fire way to shut down dialogue more so than even name calling, to me. If you (general you not specifically R63) already know not just what you think but what I think and why i think it, too, what's the point of even talking?

Bingo. I do not love it when those arguing with me tell me what I think.

And then, in these forum discussions ( not specific to this forum but every forum out there) I think we would find it far more useful to address the individuals who actually speak in the forum. In other words, addressing the deplorables, the cadre of Trumpers  out there who are not on the forum,  not helpful, they won’t hear you.

If *I*express an opinion you wish to debate, that’s great, debate it. If you are debating against people who aren’t even *here* on this forum, we all have to sit back while you (the generic you) have an imaginary dialogue with the faceless peeps. Not very useful. Or interesting. Because you, the debater, are telling us what these nameless, faceless people think which circles back to the original point here.

[ender]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

I've heard the term 'communist' used to describe exactly that many, many times from right wing Americans.  Or they simply fail to distinguish between 'socialist' and 'communist' at all.

Yeah. Among the right-wingers I know, socialism and communism are basically synonyms.

Yeah, I'm really not sure how someone could live in the USA and not understand this.

Trump got elected as president once and made a close run the second attempt. A huge % of Americans who voted (not a majority, but pretty damn close to half) voted for him, who has blatantly used this language himself.

I suppose technically Trump supporters are a minority, so what Ron said was true, but it's not remotely a small/irrelevant % of people the way it's implied.

[Sandi_k]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

I've heard the term 'communist' used to describe exactly that many, many times from right wing Americans.  Or they simply fail to distinguish between 'socialist' and 'communist' at all.

Yeah, it happens to us Canadians all the time. It's ridiculous how many Americans refer to our system as 'communist." We're not even socialist, we just have more social programs than the US.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I agree totally that many people throw out communist when meaning socialist, effectively muddying both terms.

On the other side of the things, there are people who muddy the term communist. When people rightly criticize the problems with communism and point to the USSR or China, I tend to get the arguments that those countries didn't have real communism, so you couldn't count them or something of the like. I mean, sure, this may not match theoretical communism in a textbook or something, but they're the closest on a world government scale that I'm aware of, and they suck(ed) a lot.

Also stipulating that this argument hasn't had anywhere close to the ramifications that the socialist communist swapping has. It is similar, though, in principle and annoys me.

[GuitarStv]

I agree totally that many people throw out communist when meaning socialist, effectively muddying both terms.

On the other side of the things, there are people who muddy the term communist. When people rightly criticize the problems with communism and point to the USSR or China, I tend to get the arguments that those countries didn't have real communism, so you couldn't count them or something of the like. I mean, sure, this may not match theoretical communism in a textbook or something, but they're the closest on a world government scale that I'm aware of, and they suck(ed) a lot.

Also stipulating that this argument hasn't had anywhere close to the ramifications that the socialist communist swapping has. It is similar, though, in principle and annoys me.

I mean, they're kinda right.  Perfect communism has never been achieved.  But if you have a system of government that people have tried to adhere to but nobody can ever do right, it means that your system of government is fundamentally flawed and sucks.

Unfettered Communism has always been a total shit show in practice - it's the flip side of the coin of Libertarianism . . . which is possibly the only less successful method of organizing/running the economy of a country.  Both are positions so extreme that they quickly dissolve into untenable and unlivable conditions.

[RetiredAt63]

The concept of communism works beautifully in the social insects.   ;-)

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I agree totally that many people throw out communist when meaning socialist, effectively muddying both terms.

On the other side of the things, there are people who muddy the term communist. When people rightly criticize the problems with communism and point to the USSR or China, I tend to get the arguments that those countries didn't have real communism, so you couldn't count them or something of the like. I mean, sure, this may not match theoretical communism in a textbook or something, but they're the closest on a world government scale that I'm aware of, and they suck(ed) a lot.

Also stipulating that this argument hasn't had anywhere close to the ramifications that the socialist communist swapping has. It is similar, though, in principle and annoys me.

I mean, they're kinda right.  Perfect communism has never been achieved.  But if you have a system of government that people have tried to adhere to but nobody can ever do right, it means that your system of government is fundamentally flawed and sucks.

Unfettered Communism has always been a total shit show in practice - it's the flip side of the coin of Libertarianism . . . which is possibly the only less successful method of organizing/running the economy of a country.  Both are positions so extreme that they quickly dissolve into untenable and unlivable conditions.

Exactly. The fact that people tried it and the results of their efforts to try the textbook definition are horrific is evidence itself that the premise is flawed.

The problem is their arguments that the examples aren't actually textbook communism are made against people who just want to say that communism sucks and doesn't work. Using no true Scotsman arguments to obfuscate the valid criticisms of communism is just dumb. The fact is, communism doesn't work for human beings as a large scale form of government with seriously awful consequences when tried and should be universally condemned as such

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The concept of communism works beautifully in the social insects.   ;-)

Of course :-). And it works well in general with individual families. It's not all bad.

[GuitarStv]

I agree totally that many people throw out communist when meaning socialist, effectively muddying both terms.

On the other side of the things, there are people who muddy the term communist. When people rightly criticize the problems with communism and point to the USSR or China, I tend to get the arguments that those countries didn't have real communism, so you couldn't count them or something of the like. I mean, sure, this may not match theoretical communism in a textbook or something, but they're the closest on a world government scale that I'm aware of, and they suck(ed) a lot.

Also stipulating that this argument hasn't had anywhere close to the ramifications that the socialist communist swapping has. It is similar, though, in principle and annoys me.

I mean, they're kinda right.  Perfect communism has never been achieved.  But if you have a system of government that people have tried to adhere to but nobody can ever do right, it means that your system of government is fundamentally flawed and sucks.

Unfettered Communism has always been a total shit show in practice - it's the flip side of the coin of Libertarianism . . . which is possibly the only less successful method of organizing/running the economy of a country.  Both are positions so extreme that they quickly dissolve into untenable and unlivable conditions.

Exactly. The fact that people tried it and the results of their efforts to try the textbook definition are horrific is evidence itself that the premise is flawed.

The problem is their arguments that the examples aren't actually textbook communism are made against people who just want to say that communism sucks and doesn't work. Using no true Scotsman arguments to obfuscate the valid criticisms of communism is just dumb. The fact is, communism doesn't work for human beings as a large scale form of government with seriously awful consequences when tried and should be universally condemned as such

Yep.  It's funny that you get exactly the same reasoning and arguments from the opposite end too with Libertarians.

Personally, I've run into plenty of folks who proudly claim to believe in the tenets of Libertarianism but only one (a younger guy at university who I think was just trying to justify his Trotsky beard) who are proponents of Communism.  The former seems more mainstream at the moment.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I agree totally that many people throw out communist when meaning socialist, effectively muddying both terms.

On the other side of the things, there are people who muddy the term communist. When people rightly criticize the problems with communism and point to the USSR or China, I tend to get the arguments that those countries didn't have real communism, so you couldn't count them or something of the like. I mean, sure, this may not match theoretical communism in a textbook or something, but they're the closest on a world government scale that I'm aware of, and they suck(ed) a lot.

Also stipulating that this argument hasn't had anywhere close to the ramifications that the socialist communist swapping has. It is similar, though, in principle and annoys me.

I mean, they're kinda right.  Perfect communism has never been achieved.  But if you have a system of government that people have tried to adhere to but nobody can ever do right, it means that your system of government is fundamentally flawed and sucks.

Unfettered Communism has always been a total shit show in practice - it's the flip side of the coin of Libertarianism . . . which is possibly the only less successful method of organizing/running the economy of a country.  Both are positions so extreme that they quickly dissolve into untenable and unlivable conditions.

Exactly. The fact that people tried it and the results of their efforts to try the textbook definition are horrific is evidence itself that the premise is flawed.

The problem is their arguments that the examples aren't actually textbook communism are made against people who just want to say that communism sucks and doesn't work. Using no true Scotsman arguments to obfuscate the valid criticisms of communism is just dumb. The fact is, communism doesn't work for human beings as a large scale form of government with seriously awful consequences when tried and should be universally condemned as such

Yep.  It's funny that you get exactly the same reasoning and arguments from the opposite end too with Libertarians.

Personally, I've run into plenty of folks who proudly claim to believe in the tenants of Libertarianism but only one (a younger guy at university who I think was just trying to justify his Trotsky beard) who are proponents of Communism.  The former seems more mainstream at the moment.

No doubt about libertarianism being more mainstream now.

I haven't run into any true let's implement communism people, but I have argued with more then one "backlash against capitalism", communism really isn't that bad people, and I'm like, yes....yes it is.

[Ron Scott]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

Having lived and worked in both Canada and the UK, I frequently encounter the communist label whenever I describe the health care system or parliamentary government. Ironically, in a great many ways Canada has more equal representation for its citizens and better upward mobility, which are concepts that my own family members cannot wrap their heads around because they believe only the US is a true democracy.

Yeah, but it is a minority—mostly uneducated Fox News adherents—who I think this is coming from.

The telling feature of this group is their pride in mouthing the talking points of the day without being able to present a logical defense of them.

Some of this tribe are also supportive of authoritarian dictatorships, even Putin, and may claim that America is not a democracy, but “a Republic”—all without being able to coherently define any of the terms. You basically said it yourself LOL that they actually confuse a parliamentary system with communism. Pro tip: Change the subject to monster trucks.

The populist, far right trend is the latest flavor here but it’s hardly limited to America, as most Europeans know too well. It may be tempting to define America by it’s assholes but, like they say, everybody’s got one.

You said you don't think Americans believe this, a bunch of us have told you our personal experience with many Americans believing this.

You can't then move the goal posts and say "well yeah, but that's only the Americans who believe stupid shit like that who believe that."

This is exactly the kind of shithead-logic you get from American “Patriots” who try to claim Canada and the UK are communist counties.

There was a Pew-type poll about 5-6 years ago that showed up to a quarter of Americans believed that Canada is a socialist (not communist) country and maybe a third who felt the same way about some EU countries. (This is called a minority—FYI) and contradicts the “personal experience” you describe of “a bunch” of forum members here.

Most Americans think Canada and the UK are Communist countries? Get a fuckin grip…

[nereo]

Most Americans think Canada and the UK are Communist countries? Get a fuckin grip…

You are conflating most with many, perhaps intentionally? If a quarter or more of US adults believe something so objectively wrong about their closest neighbors and staunchest allies, that’s deeply concerning. Read through the responses to see discussion about the inability to distinguish between socialist and communist.

[RetiredAt63]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

Having lived and worked in both Canada and the UK, I frequently encounter the communist label whenever I describe the health care system or parliamentary government. Ironically, in a great many ways Canada has more equal representation for its citizens and better upward mobility, which are concepts that my own family members cannot wrap their heads around because they believe only the US is a true democracy.

Yeah, but it is a minority—mostly uneducated Fox News adherents—who I think this is coming from.

The telling feature of this group is their pride in mouthing the talking points of the day without being able to present a logical defense of them.

Some of this tribe are also supportive of authoritarian dictatorships, even Putin, and may claim that America is not a democracy, but “a Republic”—all without being able to coherently define any of the terms. You basically said it yourself LOL that they actually confuse a parliamentary system with communism. Pro tip: Change the subject to monster trucks.

The populist, far right trend is the latest flavor here but it’s hardly limited to America, as most Europeans know too well. It may be tempting to define America by it’s assholes but, like they say, everybody’s got one.

You said you don't think Americans believe this, a bunch of us have told you our personal experience with many Americans believing this.

You can't then move the goal posts and say "well yeah, but that's only the Americans who believe stupid shit like that who believe that."

This is exactly the kind of shithead-logic you get from American “Patriots” who try to claim Canada and the UK are communist counties.

There was a Pew-type poll about 5-6 years ago that showed up to a quarter of Americans believed that Canada is a socialist (not communist) country and maybe a third who felt the same way about some EU countries. (This is called a minority—FYI) and contradicts the “personal experience” you describe of “a bunch” of forum members here.

Most Americans think Canada and the UK are Communist countries? Get a fuckin grip…

Well, many Americans seem to think that Canada and other Parliamentary democracies are less free than the US, despite the US ranking lower in the international freedom index.  If I recall correctly a certain Mr. Tucker recently suggested on TV that the US invade Canada to liberate us from our oppressive government.  And given how many people watch his show, he is not in a tiny minority.

[Metalcat]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

Having lived and worked in both Canada and the UK, I frequently encounter the communist label whenever I describe the health care system or parliamentary government. Ironically, in a great many ways Canada has more equal representation for its citizens and better upward mobility, which are concepts that my own family members cannot wrap their heads around because they believe only the US is a true democracy.

Yeah, but it is a minority—mostly uneducated Fox News adherents—who I think this is coming from.

The telling feature of this group is their pride in mouthing the talking points of the day without being able to present a logical defense of them.

Some of this tribe are also supportive of authoritarian dictatorships, even Putin, and may claim that America is not a democracy, but “a Republic”—all without being able to coherently define any of the terms. You basically said it yourself LOL that they actually confuse a parliamentary system with communism. Pro tip: Change the subject to monster trucks.

The populist, far right trend is the latest flavor here but it’s hardly limited to America, as most Europeans know too well. It may be tempting to define America by it’s assholes but, like they say, everybody’s got one.

You said you don't think Americans believe this, a bunch of us have told you our personal experience with many Americans believing this.

You can't then move the goal posts and say "well yeah, but that's only the Americans who believe stupid shit like that who believe that."

This is exactly the kind of shithead-logic you get from American “Patriots” who try to claim Canada and the UK are communist counties.

There was a Pew-type poll about 5-6 years ago that showed up to a quarter of Americans believed that Canada is a socialist (not communist) country and maybe a third who felt the same way about some EU countries. (This is called a minority—FYI) and contradicts the “personal experience” you describe of “a bunch” of forum members here.

Most Americans think Canada and the UK are Communist countries? Get a fuckin grip…

I literally never said that.

[iris lily]

I don’t believe we consider socialist-leaning capitalist democracies to be “communist” LOL.

Having lived and worked in both Canada and the UK, I frequently encounter the communist label whenever I describe the health care system or parliamentary government. Ironically, in a great many ways Canada has more equal representation for its citizens and better upward mobility, which are concepts that my own family members cannot wrap their heads around because they believe only the US is a true democracy.

Yeah, but it is a minority—mostly uneducated Fox News adherents—who I think this is coming from.

The telling feature of this group is their pride in mouthing the talking points of the day without being able to present a logical defense of them.

Some of this tribe are also supportive of authoritarian dictatorships, even Putin, and may claim that America is not a democracy, but “a Republic”—all without being able to coherently define any of the terms. You basically said it yourself LOL that they actually confuse a parliamentary system with communism. Pro tip: Change the subject to monster trucks.

The populist, far right trend is the latest flavor here but it’s hardly limited to America, as most Europeans know too well. It may be tempting to define America by it’s assholes but, like they say, everybody’s got one.

You said you don't think Americans believe this, a bunch of us have told you our personal experience with many Americans believing this.

You can't then move the goal posts and say "well yeah, but that's only the Americans who believe stupid shit like that who believe that."

This is exactly the kind of shithead-logic you get from American “Patriots” who try to claim Canada and the UK are communist counties.

There was a Pew-type poll about 5-6 years ago that showed up to a quarter of Americans believed that Canada is a socialist (not communist) country and maybe a third who felt the same way about some EU countries. (This is called a minority—FYI) and contradicts the “personal experience” you describe of “a bunch” of forum members here.

Most Americans think Canada and the UK are Communist countries? Get a fuckin grip…

Well, many Americans seem to think that Canada and other Parliamentary democracies are less free than the US, despite the US ranking lower in the international freedom index.  If I recall correctly a certain Mr. Tucker recently suggested on TV that the US invade Canada to liberate us from our oppressive government.  And given how many people watch his show, he is not in a tiny minority.

I looked up the Cato Institute’s Freedom Index  since it’s been years since I looked at that.

The difference between Canada and the U.S. in that index is a difference of 6%. For contrast the difference between the U.S. and say Syria is 260%.

I would want to drill down into the details of the 433 page report to see where the specific  differences really lie because the index measures about 10 areas, and perhaps areas I value more are higher in the U.S. But at the summary level, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Canada and the U.S.

Oh, and we all lost freedoms in recent years. From the report “human freedom  deteriorated severely in the wake of coronavirus pandemic…” The average fell 7%.

[nereo]

The difference between Canada and the U.S. in that index is a difference of 6%. For contrast the difference between the U.S. and say Syria is 260%.

I would want to drill down into the details of the 433 page report to see where the specific  differences really lie because the index measures about 10 areas, and perhaps areas I value more are higher in the U.S. But at the summary level, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Canada and the U.S.

Key to the discussion here is that Canada has a marginally higher level of freedom, which is counter to what many people in the US believe to be true.

[RetiredAt63]

The difference between Canada and the U.S. in that index is a difference of 6%. For contrast the difference between the U.S. and say Syria is 260%.

I would want to drill down into the details of the 433 page report to see where the specific  differences really lie because the index measures about 10 areas, and perhaps areas I value more are higher in the U.S. But at the summary level, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Canada and the U.S.

Key to the discussion here is that Canada has a marginally higher level of freedom, which is counter to what many people in the US believe to be true.

Exactly.  He made us sound like we were barely above Syria.

We also have the freedom to not worry about federal government shutdowns because budgets are not passed.   Budget doesn't pass?  You are out, that was a vote of no confidence, it's election time.