An ideology.

They combine sloppy reasoning with partial truths and create a false reality that they base their entire narrative off of.

There's no reason to come up with refined theories that would make their actions appear sensible. They aren't. As in, you're putting in way more thought than they are.

The saddest part of the whole thing is that most of them likely genuinely believe the shit they push. It's like Alex Jones or any of the other mad conspiracy theorists,

They don't analyze the unfortunate situation of black people and then conclude it's a class struggle. They **start** from the class struggle ideology, then try to shove everything into it.

If they did reach the class struggle conclusion from logical steps, they'd be able to argue something when challenged.

That does also make a lot of sense. I've been trying to understand what it is I'm missing about the progressive ideology. I thought that surely it isn't that they're just dumb, or manipulative, or willfully ignoring facts. How else could they have so much support?

I think what you're saying makes a bit more sense.

Watch Jordan Peterson, my dude. He breaks it down beautifully.

Understanding ideologies, specially the very destructive ones, is his specialty.

Yeah, I've seen a bit of his content, I'd consider myself a fan.

Watch it again. I watched many of his videos multiple times. I realized I just didn't get the simplicity of the words he was saying the first time I watched many of his videos. He really craft his sentences with precision.

When he says "it's simpler than that", he really means it.

Jordan Peterson is very good at saying things in a way that isn't condescending or rude, and the left could learn a thing or two about that from him.

Somebody (I think Crowder?) made the point, the left has no center. It's not that the "center" of the left is radicalized, it's that people that claim to be on the left, without reservations, are not even sure of how extreme their positions are, and are willing to go all the way if other leftists push them to it.

Or if they're confronted by conservatives, or even classical liberals.

I'd consider myself left-wing, but I try not to say that because it lumps me in with progressives.

You can see for instance when they talk about abortion. Crowder can easily push pro-abortion people to say the women have the right to abort a baby at 9 months pregnancy.

They get uncomfortable, but ultimately they accept that's the inevitable consequence of their ideology.

It starts "if a woman was raped, she has the right to abort", but very quickly becomes "it's never too late to abort."

I think it should be up to the mum if she wants to abort a 9 month old baby or not. It is their choice, is it not? The same way it's your choice to eat fast food until you have a heart attack, or to fuck with everyone in your college dorm until you have more STDs than fingers and toes.

So at 9 months, it's still not a baby?

The difference between eating yourself to death is, it's your life only that's being in danger.

I personally think it is a baby, but, I think it should be up to the mother to decide.

Should mothers have the right to kill their babies?

Should the mother have the right to take drugs and drink alcohol, and cause permanent damage to the baby's development?

No, because a baby is certainly another human. As long as the mother is not yet in labor, the baby is part of the mother, as far as the government is concerned. If the mother says the 9 month old baby is not a baby, the state can't insist it is.

So if it's inside her vagina, it's not a different life that deserves protection?

Mothers are already (in practice) allowed to take drugs and such and fuck up their kids, is there any way to prevent that without imprisoning mothers and forcing them to do things against their will?

Well, in practice, you can't stop a mother from tripping over a set of stairs and kill the baby by an intentional accident.

What is your point?

Baby being in her uterus or in her arms.

My point is, we can still make a moral judgement regardless of how practical it is to enforce.

I'm talking about this from a legal perspective, not a moral perspective.

But the whole question is what moral values determine what the law should be.

Morals shouldn't be the sole thing that determines laws, you have to factor in whether enforcing the law is feasable or even possible.

"A human being should have the freedom to do with his/her body whatever he/she wishes" versus "no life should be sacrificed to save somebody a discomfort".

Moral principles are what give origin to laws.

Why should any life be saved?

Okay, okay, slow down a bit.

More specifically, why should the state have the obligation to save any life?