The title reads like a very polite own.
Otherwise, depends on your circumstances. Do your nationally syndicated news media propagate right-wing or left-wing ideology writ large? Do your nation's school systems instill senses of nationalism and xenophobia into its youth? Does your country's leadership more fervently and regularly repress one side or the other?
It is easier to be a fascist in a fascist state. It is easier to be a liberal in a liberal one, and a socialist in a socialist one. Half the battle has already been won at that point. There is comfort to belief in the system one lives under, a comfort that has the potential to breed ignorance or intellectual laziness.
My own experience shows that most people are more -- I hate to use the word, naturally inclined towards sympathizing with a left-wing perspective when the correct words are used.
I think it's probably just as easy to be a vaushite as it is to be a fan of Joe Rogan, if you accept that kind of passive consumption as political orientation.
I don't really believe a unified "left wing" exists.
It's harder to be a well-read, committed, and active Marxist-leninist than it is to be someone who simply wants to roll back the status quo to their benefit, sure.
There are plenty of nominal leftists who don't read theory, don't put their principles in practice in their life, and aren't connected with a party, cadre work, or real life organizing (guilty).
I think also, left-wing groups tend to be more prone to splitting off into separate factions whenever members disagree, whereas right-wing groups tend to just glom together under a broad umbrella. Which often means you're not just arguing your point against the right, but also a good chunk of the left as well.
Also the right aren't always even bothered with arguing their point at all, often they just insult their opponents and do whatever they like.
•
Right wing is definitely not a cohesive group. They have big points of disagreement. But will indeed band together against their mortal enemy : socialism or any leftist ideology.
Yes. "common sense" is the repetition of dominant ideology. They can bang on "common sense" and destroy things. We have to deconstruct common sense so. That we can build the future.
Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is working very hard against us.
I think socdem is the easiest followed by right wing then truly left wing. Saying that from originally being a socdem (communism is kinda hard to randomly stumble upon/research unless you live in an AES state or something). But depends a lot on the location.
For America being socdem definitely harder than right wing.
You have quite a few assumptions built into this question, whether you know it or not. Do you really think left wingers spend all day in books? How is the difficulty of something quantified? Considering how you phrase the question, there is clearly a lean here. How hard do you work at it? Surely, those at the top of the biggest political ideologies work incredibly hard at their craft. Though it can't be unsaid that not all of them work honestly.
Not trying to be an enlightened centrist (because I'm not a centrist lmao). Simply acting as devils advocate here.
Simply acting as devils advocate here.
Considering how you phrase the question, there is clearly a lean here.
The post is in Lemmygrad
I'm suggesting that the question may not have the answer that the question implies it does. I know where we are. I'm here because I have the same lean. Not really seeing your point.
Responses like this are exactly why it is harder to be on the left, because the left is built on an ideological foundation of collective accommodation and will actually consider your arguments, while the right will just respond with personal attacks that will detail the entire conversation.
On their surface these arguments all also sound reasonable but notice that they don't provide any solutions or evidence, only claims that your points are flawed, which is a hallmark of lazy thinking and undisciplined logic.
Are you saying that my response is a personal attack? I truly don't understand how your first paragraph is a relevant response to mine unless you are implying I am, which is funny, because I am very, very left. I don't see how it is a personal attack. Please help me understand if you don't mind.
I don't provide solutions to my questions because they were written to provoke thought of the OP, who may benefit considering the original question asked. I'm not making an argument so much as answering the question in an indirect way. No - I don't think it's harder to be a leftist, as a leftist.
I'll try to break it down a little further for you.
You have quite a few assumptions built into this question, whether you know it or not.
Asserts that the entire point of view is inherently flawed and also that the writer may be too dumb to realize it.
Do you really think left wingers spend all day in books?
Strawman argument that falsely equates reading books all day as a requirement to be considered intelligent at least in comparison to people people without "research and knowledge".
How is the difficulty of something quantified?
A basic unanswerable existential question. How do we know anything? That calls into question any subjective question.
Considering how you phrase the question, there is clearly a lean here.
Assertion of personal bias with no example or evidence except for the vague "how it's phrased". Interestingly, your statement here directly contradicts your earlier call for objective measurability and moves the goalposts mid conversation.
How hard do you work at it?
Personal attack implying that your opponent may not be approaching the discussion honestly and may be deliberately misrepresenting themself.
Surely, those at the top of the biggest political ideologies work incredibly hard at their craft.
An unprovable assertion designed to suggest the integrity of the people in question without actually providing examples or evidence.
Though it can't be unsaid that not all of them work honestly.
Theoretically a small concession against the claim above, but noticeably doesn't say who, and usually ends up meaning "the people I don't agree with".
Not trying to be an enlightened centrist (because I'm not a centrist lmao). Simply acting as devils advocate here.
An appeal to avoid a personal connection to the arguments made because you are just representing the views of someone else, giving your a convenient "I'm just the messenger" escape clause from having to actually defend any of these claims.
Hopefully that's more clear to you.
I reject the assertions you are making about my intentions. My phrasing was obviously unclear and the message was not received.
Exactly!
When faced with any actual points you would need to explain, justify, or defend, attempt to throw out the entire conversation to avoid accountability. Classic right wing response.
Thanks for the great example!
If you really want to hit it home though, you need to either double down with a personal attack or start a completely different argument that you feel like you have a better chance of winning, preferably both at once while also questioning the intent of your opponent to act in good faith at all.
A popular finisher is implying that they just can't see the truth because they have let the liberal media brainwash them and telling them they need to use a different source for their information that isn't afraid to actually tell them the truth.
You are missing some key elements here. I responded to what I saw as a flawed question and asked some of my own to get the OP to think about what they were asking. I incorrectly assumed it to be a question asked by an edgy high schooler and attempted to answer in a way that would get them to think about what they were asking. I stand by my original point that it is not harder to be left wing than right wing, though I admit I have not given you a complete explanation as to why I think that.
I avoid no accountability here. My statement was unclear and therefore misunderstood. If you do not understand what I was attempting to say at by this point, I see no value in attempting to explain it further.
I don't understand why you keep implying that I am right wing. I thought that was made clear. Not even a little bit. You know nothing of it because the conversation has not been about my personal views, and I am not about to describe my personal views to you. There is no value in explaining right wing argument tactics, because they do not apply.
I totally understand that you aren't right wing. I was just using this conversation to highlight the strategies used by the right wing to attack left wing arguments and the difficulty of doing so in a rational way when faced with a non-factual style of attack.
The fact that you never really took it seriously in the first place and only ever wanted to make someone you saw as young and inexperienced question their position without really seeing the problems with your style of argument really only helps my analogy because even now you have admitted that it was only ever about casting doubt on the other side and not about explaining your position.
Whether you identify as right wing or not, the fact is that these tactics are pretty standard attack strategies, and when one side is trying to build consensus and the other side only wants to poke holes in their arguments, perhaps now you can see why I believe that the left wing has the harder job.
Are you speaking to US partisan politics here? As in, are you referring to republicans when you say "right" and democrats when you say "left"?
I ask, because the political right in general is about centralization of rights, and the left is about decentralization of rights... i.e. should the rights you have be a matter of state, of law, or should they be inherent in you as an individual entity.
US politics has absolutely fucked that concept up, across the board.
Republicans want the state to dictate morality, but want everything else left to individuals. That is to say, that depending on what exact issue you put on the table for discussion, they can be very right wing or very left wing... and likewise with democrats...
Republicans are incredibly authoritarian minded (right) when it comes to abortion. Democrats are very authoritarian minded (right) when it comes to gun rights. And flip flop that to both sides being very individualistic (left) if you reverse it.
The short answer is that if you're referencing US politics with this question, nobody has done any fucking research whatsoever. Democrats claim to be the left, and demand authoritarian solutions to most problems (race, wealth inequality, crime...). Republicans claim the right, and want an absence of government on most things. It's absurd that either claims left, right, liberal, conservative, etc... they're all over the map on these scales... the only consistency you'll find is that they both abhor the other and will more often than not go to unreasonable lengths to disagree (this appears as face value to be a republican trait, but I promise you, I will be determined by a not small number of people to be a Ford F950 driving redneck trump fan simply because I didn't cast a distinctly blue hue with this comment... at best I'll be declared "enlightened" in a very facetious manner... I'm not a Smurf, so I must be a redneck...).
But offhand, id say the republicans do a lot more research. It's not very good quality, and it tends to favor things like the Bible or cherry picked "fact", but they're definitely more ubiquitous about it :)