I am happy to report that I am speaking up for trans and queer people while being cis, independent of pride month. And I think we all should, independent of sexual identify or preference.

Recreate? I am not sure if “worsen” wouldn’t be more accurate.

I agree with you but you seem to misunderstand me. I tried to express that for a lot of people the CO2 issue is the one that they really want to focus on, due to the impact. The arguments for reducing CO2 are almost entirely long term issues and a lot of people think they won’t experience it anyway as they die beforehand, making a selfish argument difficult. Especially if they are supposed to be simple punchline.

For non-co2 issues, it is easy.

I want to add that in capitalism Inflation is basically required and wanted by the state. That means the current price should be above the normalized price. as the current price should be the most inflated price.

Well, the more intellectual solid argument would be the argument of normalized price. Just like in anything in capitalism, the price of stuff changes. By e.g. investing a little into a stock every Monday, no matter what, you normalize the cost of your stocks. On a large enough time scale, you will have paid the average price of the stock over the timeframe. So you “never” bought the peak, and… Well the dip… But it give you a reasonable security, if you have to sell you don’t lose much under most situations. and well, you don’t win much. If we see healthcare under the same light, we can conclude that a tax (a regular investment independent of market conditions) into the healthcare system, would normalize your cost of healthcare. So in the case, you need healthcare, you don’t lose or win much compared to your normalized price. While otherwise you might buy the dip or the peak. Obviously the counterargument would be that it is only true of the health is average. If you are above average healthy, you would statistically speaking pay more. Counterargument of the counterargument is of course that e.g. cancer can fuck anyone at any time. So averaging your risk might be a good choice. Obviously private health insurance are normalizing cost too but most “customers” better normalization and a broader distribution of administrative costs. Think of it like big corporation replacing small family business by being cheaper through broader distribution of costs.

I think that is a bit complex for the previous style.

So the better short argument would be about distribution of costs. In a “if you live alone, you need to cook, if you live with your partner, only 1 person needs to cook” way. But I need more time.

Environmentalism is difficult because it just doesn’t work for certain things. CO2 is for a big part of the population not a real issue. Like they die anyway soonish. If you talk about clean beaches and parks, It could work but that is probably not your focus.

Proper healthcare as in ‘free’? Or just a better quality? Anti-corpo health insurance?

I would love to think about arguments like that but I need details to form them.

Sure. I strongly support the usage of selfish leftish reasonings.

Another good one is “look, I don’t want me shit stolen, poor people steal my shit. less poor people, less shit of mine is stolen. That is why I support a social safety net”

Obviously in reality, the rich steal more of my shit but that is the next left wing reason of taxation.

Edit: for free education, there are also some good ones. Free education => more accessibility => more e.g. doctors, cheaper quicker healthcare. More doctors => more competition => better doctors and better service.

I once told someone: “look, when I step outside, I don’t want to see homeless people. That is why I happily pay my taxes and am supportive of social safety nets.”

I have different reasons like human rights but in that conversation, a selfish perspective was the better way to make the point.

It is totally debatable. Just sharing my pov! Best of luck!

My apologies!

For a conservative™ (the way most people use the word), hearing “anti-conservative”, probably makes them reject you immediately as from their pov, you reject them.

For a left wing person, hearing “anti-conservative” probably makes them assume that you talk about conservative™ and not conservative as you mean it.

So in both cases, you don’t have the conversation that you want if you want to promote your political stance, as you kinda encourage them to not engage with your political stance.

I think, there, we have a disagreement. To me, it would sound like you reject the republicans specifically in a us political discussion, a position that I wouldn’t be interested exploring, because of how strong the tribalism in us politics is. I would just assume that you are supporting the democrats. While with the understanding of the conversation, I would assume you aren’t supportive of any of the us political party and vote for the least bad option.

In other words, I wouldn’t want to explore your political position if you use that term as I would assume I understood. Consequently I would misunderstand your position. And I think others would do the same.

If someone would identify as a conservative, they wouldn’t take you seriously anymore, as they would understand it that you reject them, even tho in practice they would agree with you on a lot of stuff and you aren’t necessarily rejecting them.

I don’t know what the best term is, but I fairly certain conservatism is probably one of the worst. I think tribalism and anti-tribalism would be a better starting point while that was a meaning already too.

While I am totally in the “bind all and protect all” camp and really against the “in group protect, out group rules” and I think conservatism is often in practice “protect me and rule others”, I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.

I think fundamentally the hierarchy in right wing politics imply an in/out group. But just like conservatism is a form of right wing political views, so you could argue that the hierarchical political views are a Form of “in group protect, out group bind”.

Whatever you want to call it, is part of conservatism, I believe. But I don’t like to call it conservatism, so it feels like we are defining two related but different things with the same name, which will be confusing and could be used by e.g. “progressive” capitalists to claim that they aren’t conservative and therefore not “in group protect, out group bind”.