Fixed the font. All else is unchanged.
Fixed the font.
Yet still made an image of text.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
I thought OP’s message was cut-and-dried political science everyone knew, then I saw the comments here debating it. Wow, people on lemmy are lost. This information is everywhere: just go to wikipedia.
The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, with emphasis placed upon issues of social equality and social hierarchy.
It’s the 1ˢᵗ axis of the political map commonly shown.
The political compass is propaganda. There is no such thing as auth-left or lib-right. There is no division between social and economic axes.
The definition of the right-left spectrum is rooted in the french revolution. Rightism is about consolidating power and creating strict socio-economic hierarchies so the more-privileged can subject their will on the less-privileged, while leftism is about flattening those hierarchies to prevent anyone from subjugating others and ensuring equality and egalitarianism are maintained.
Whoever has power controls economy and vice-versa. Period. So rightism will always be authoritarian, hierarchal, and have a functionally captive economy. How benevolent this authoritarianism is toward the populace is meaningless as any liberty is an illusion provided at the whims of the more wealthy-powerful classes.
Liberalism arises from the willing abuse of an under-regulated economy that allows consolidation of wealth and, therefore, accumulation of power. Therefore the end result of unchecked liberalism is always rightism.
There are many forms of leftism, because leftism is about tearing down and preventing accumulation and consolidation of power. The goal is to prevent runaway snowballing of wealth or power that would allow any person or group to subjugate others, ideally in a way that is sustainable and stable. Therefore leftism is about personal liberty and freedom as long as it does not threaten to diminish or supersede the liberty or freedom of others.
The concepts cannot be separated. They travel together and influence each other directly. The political compass is merely an attempt to make “both sides” seem equivalent without addressing the actual cause-effect of wealth and power accumulation, which serves who? Rightists. Capitalists. Liberals. Those who would seek to selfishly hoard more power, privilege, comfort, and authority than everyone else at the expense of anyone else.
- usability
That doesn’t really make sense at the end…
Like, it’s structured so that logically it’s a conclusion but it’s not.
A bottom-up power structure is left wing, but in it the power lies with the voters, not those elected to office:
The federal party, works for the state parties and the presidential nominee.
The state parties actually do a lot here, they have a lot of primaries to organize (neutrally) and then assist all the campaigns.
In both cases though, the politicians are beholden to the voters, and should be governing based on the wishes of the majority of their constituents.
What would go a long way to fixing that would be an easy route to recall elections.
By this measure, Putin, Xi, and Maduro are right wing.
Not saying it’s wrong, just extending it to the logical conclusion.
Welcome to logic.
Now if only that would dawn on everyone else (especially tankies): trading one brand of inequality for another is still inequality.
Yes.
Putin, Xi and Maduro are autocratic despite what they might say about themselves. They’re absolutely right wing.
you seem to think this is an absurd statement
I don’t know enough about Maduro to judge him, but as for Putin and Xi? Yes, absolutely.
It’s more complicated than a one-dimensional left- right. That’s why someone came up with the political compass. Still doesn’t tell the whole picture, but it’s a more meaningful oversimplification.
Right and left as terms are so undercomplex, they can’t really describe modern politics. Ib this case “authoritarian” vs “Democratic” would make more sense. But then the meme character could get lost…
Hook, line, and sinker
Arguably the sweet spot in any representative democracy is somewhere in the middle. So the struggle of left and right ensures a balanced political landscape. Too much distribution of power ensures nothing gets done, to little and we get that dictator situation.
I know this is supposed to be “left good right bad, mkay”. Let’s have some balanced takes around these parts. <3
“Guys, why can’t we compromise, let’s find a balance with the people who want total, private control over the means by which to survive and build a society so they can personally enrich themselves from artificially created scarcity.”
This is you right now.
Yeah let’s not compromise and be the same assholes and become what we seek to destroy. If only we had a lefty dictator then his benevolence will make everything better. Hitler was a problem, let’s to Stalin again… ;)
Cool story, thanks for highlighting you know diddly squat about political theory and alternative ideologies.
This is a presumption we make, but CIA analyses of societies as they democratize (reform their election systems to better represent the people) don’t seem to slow down as much as we predicted. Perhaps the metric is misgauged much like the Laffer curve, and the sweet spot is to the left of center, somewhere that no nation has yet explored.
Ideally, as citizens have the time and energy to become civically engaged and aware of their own best interests, as information is better accessible to them, distribution of power outward can be afforded with much less slowdown.
And to be fair, progress in neoliberal states is ratcheted back by right-wing institutions such as SCOTUS, not due to the power distribution of the election system.
Yeah, in one of these scenarios, things don’t get done and in the other, people’s freedoms are taken.
Real difficult to decide which extreme I’d take.
And yes, I know the actual implication here is that public services fail and infrastructure isn’t as viable. But I would take free and struggling over oppressed and struggling no matter what.
If the direct reward for obeying the system was health and riches, it’d probably be a genuinely difficult choice, but that’s not the actual choice we’re being offered. They want to take your freedom and your wellbeing.
Um… is this sweet spot in the room with us right now?
