Could you please define exactly what you mean by “left-wing”?

yes

Most people everywhere are slightly left of centre*. Most leaders everywhere are slightly right of centre*.

*Not in the American sense. Y’all crazy.

Some of us are simply europeans.

Not only that, I’ve tried pitching the fediverse to right wing people, but they didn’t bite.

Even the crypto bros that were all about decentralization couldn’t see why a decentralized social media platform was superior.

This also didn’t matter for people who care about “free speech”.

You think the allure of being fully independent and having your own instance would be right up their alley given how they value independence, but nope.

Seriously? Why isn’t there a right wing instance? My guess is that a right wing person can’t fathom owning something that benefits others which doesn’t give them back profit.

I believe all life have value, no matter what.

I believe in justice and equality.

I believe in the rule if law.

I believe in democracy.

I believe in the freedom of speech.

I believe in religious freedom.

I believe no one should go hungry.

I believe no one should freeze.

I believe no one should die from preventable diseases.

I believe everyone has a right to education.

I believe everyone has a right to healthcare.

I believe everyone has a right to participate in society and the internet.

I believe everyone should contribute if they can, because that is fair.

I believe people should be able to retire.

I believe most people are good, and want to do good.

I believe in cooperation, and working towards a common goal.

I believe that all people should have a minimum set of rights, that are non-negotiable.

I trust my neighbours, my family and strangers.

Based on these values I could be placed anywhere from center-right to far-left in Europe.

In the US I am a filthy commie

By LEFT do you infer compassion, empathy, and class solidarity? In contrast, by RIGHT do you infer me-first, only my rights matter and only those in my clan deserve to be cared about?

Then, yes.

If you consider Democrats left wing then yes, by far the most here are left wing, since by most European standards Democrats are clearly right wing.

Republicans are extreme right by most standards. Republican (MAGA) is basically an American version of AfD!
So by that standard I guess about 80% here are left wing, maybe even more?

I’m team right-wing.

The right chicken wing is always tastier, so I eat that first.

Edit: Wait, this is politics? Wrong thread.

My priorities in politics is:

1. Don’t wreck the economy.
2. Uphold the rule of law.

In my country that makes me right leaning. In the US with the current president that apparently makes me a leftist.

Maybe. But your impression of it may be skewed, because there are a lot of non-USA people here. That creste some mismatch in terms that tend to overwaight the perceived size of left-leaning people. But it’s terminology, really. What in USA is considered “left” more-or-less align with what is considered left outside of USA. But what an average Trump supporter call “conservative”, in the rest of the word is simply know as lunacy.

Anti-Conservative

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

• Frank Wilhoit

I hope so

I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so yes. I think you’ll find most people on Lemmy in general fall into the major categories of “Liberal,” as in the US Democrat style, Anarchists, and Marxists. Different instances lean in different directions on this, with overall few outright conservatives.

I’m Independent, but cannot support Republicans anymore … so I guess I’m a Democrat that hates gun control.