Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker bot?
Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker bot?
I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.
It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion -- let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.
But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it's the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways...so really no difference).
What's the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there's people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don't see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck...
You're viewing a single thread.
In America "Left / Left leaning" is to the right of "Democratic Socialists/ Social democrats" which is to the right of "Socialists/Communists". In countries where those are options, it can be confusing calling something that is on the right side of the above spectrum "left". The bot should have either a numerical score (Nazi =1, Right = 3, Left = 5, Dem Socialist = 7, Communist = 9) or it should have a "Socialist leaning" category so that people get that they aren't saying Al Jazzera is supportive of Marx
thanks for putting it more succinctly than I did!
That scale breaks down at first sight, I can have 50% communist views, 30% Dem Soc views, 19% Left views, and 1% Nazi views (i.e. I want to do a Holocaust on Putin and his cronies).
So you are 69% for communism, and 31% for capitalism. I am interested in how you draw that up.
Democratic socialists and communists are both far to the left, even where those are options.
Communist would be 10, demsoc maybe 8 or 9, socdem 7, soclib 5, 6 or 7 depending on the flavour, pure libs circ 5.
On the other side you get libcon at 3/4/5, soccons 3/4, cons 3, natcon 2/3 and fascists/nazis @ 1.
It says a lot that you put left at 5, which generally should be the middle of the scale.
Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats – "left" is advocates of a socialist (or communist if you wish to separate them) economic system and social equality, and "right" is advocates of a capitalist or fascist economic system and social hierarchy. Around the center would be where social democrats/capitalists who want strong social safety are, or in other words people who want a mixed-economy/regulated capitalism and are for the most part socially progressive.
Also it's hard to tell what you mean by "pure libs" but in most of the world that implies extremely free-market capitalist and pro-discrimination under the guise of "free speech" – very to the right. They're usually called "libertarians" or "ancaps" in the US.
If by "pure lib" you mean a principled American "liberal" then there's not really much to differentiate that from a social democrat – in practice America's liberal politicians are either social democrats, or corrupt politicians who suck up to corporate money and stand in the way of social democrats – the latter definitely not being centrists. Same goes for "social liberals".
Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives. Democratic socialists are barely left of social democrats, so much so that social democrats label themselves democratic socialists all the time. The ideology is dependent upon reforming a fundamentally capitalistic system in an attempt to achieve socialism, while more lefty ideologies are focused on forcing the ruling/regressive capitalist class to comply (and some just outright skip to purging all the aristocracy who are anti-worker).
An accurate-ish description may be "socialist" and "syndicalist" vaguely can be anywhere on the left, so 5.5 to 10; "communist" and similar adjectives like "ararcho-communist" encompass 9 to 10; "anarchist" contains ideologies between center and fully left, so 5 to 10 (although most anarchist ideology is very far to the left, a lot of them are communists); "democratic socialist" is 5.5 to 7; "social democrat" is 4.5 to 5.5; the American "left" is mostly anywhere between 4 and 6.5 nowadays, although a decade ago it'd be more like 3 to 4.5, with actual social democrats being considered fringe or "extremists". US "conservativism" (or "conservatism", pick your poison on the spelling) is pretty much entirely "sounds kinda like fascism" to "fascism" at this point, so 1.5 to 2.5, with some politicians in the faction maybe squeaking it out to 3 or 3.5. Full-blown Nazis are 1. Libertarians/classical liberals are harder to classify in this sort of system, as in practice they're usually as right-wing and reggressive as American conservatives, but their ideology is theoretically supposed to be more like a 3.5. Ancaps are just straight up 1 to 2.5 though, a complete lack of law applying to corporations & companies in general, being anti-government funding except when it's military or police (except some of the farthest right of them believe even those should be completely private). They're on par with fascist in terms of the scale from left to right.
Assuming decimals are out of the question, let's just truncate everything higher than 5 and round up everything lower than 5.
Generally, the American public (or rather, the white majority) hovers at 3 to 4, with younger people being more like 4 to 7.
What's fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela as at a similar position in a political spectrum as American liberals, when in reality they were literally full-blown revolutionary socialists/marxists and belonged to communist organizations. And figures like Gandhi and Orwell were openly reformist socialists. I mean it's intentional rightwashing by the government to get rid of any and all semblance of left ideology from now-near-legendary people, and it's not surprising at all, but it's still fucked. This is the framework of thinking Americans have when they try to categorize ideologies on a left-to-right spectrum; the most leftist historical figures they know that aren't Stalin or Mao or something are all rightwashed into oblivion, portrayed to be liberal in the American sense, which tricks people into believing the farthest left you can go before you cross the centrist line is Bill Clinton or something.
If we take "left or right" to "how far one acts to accelarate towards progressivism or regressivism", though, then I could see your proposed comparison working decently, with the caveat being that democratic socialists wouldn't be anywhere near communists in that regard either.
Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats
The "left" vs "right" dichotomy is inherently context-dependent though. Objectively, it's a terrible way to compare ideologies without context. Personally I find 8axis to be pretty decent instead. Unfortunately, the world on average is more authoritarian & conservative than the US, your scale may be an accurate representation of the lemmy overton window.
What’s fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures...
Because they think that the changes they achieved were good, and they see themselves as good, and they consider themselves american liberals.
Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives.
In the global overton window? Yes way.
What pushes democratic socialists a full point towards the fringe compared to social democrats?
From wikipedia:
Democratic socialism is a left-wing set of political philosophies that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management within a market socialist, decentralised planned, or democratic centrally planned socialist economy.
Unlike social democrats, democratic socialists want to do away with private ownership and market economies. For the record, the US democratic party are not social democrats.
I'll finish off with my take on the infamous "what's a liberal?". In hindsight it was probably a poor choice of words as there is no such thing as a "pure" liberal. The basic liberal value is freedom. To me, that includes freedoms of thought, speech, press (i.e writing, possibly also digital), organization, bodily autonomy and lastly ownership. Everything else is a product of how to interpret those freedoms and how to implement them.
"Pure liberals" would most of all strive to uphold these individual freedoms, though their solutions when different peoples rights clash may be different. A "pure" liberal strives for a balance maximizing freedoms of individuals whilst simultaneously minimizing infringements from both government and private actors. To me, neither ancaps nor libertarians are liberal. Libertarians prioritize small government to the point where it is incapable of protecting individual rights from abuse by third parties whilst ancaps prioritize property rights over individual freedoms.
Soclibs and libcons both limit freedoms somewhat in favour of other values.
I always remember when I learnt that the liberals of Australia were the conservative party, and that labor was to the left of them. Every country seems to have a different spectrum.
Oh for sure. You've got to look at the ideology under the hood.
Party names are really just names. In Sweden, vänsterpartiet (left party) are communists (former name vänsterpartiet kommunisterna during the soviet era). In Denmark there's venstre (left) which are liberal conservatives.
Even our most economically right wing party (the moderates) are to the left of the US Democrats in that area.