Why is being "Right-Wing" considered as bad these days?

That's an horrendous generalization.

Because social conservatives are generally illogical, science hating bigots. They deserve all the hate they get.

Fiscal cons, aren't as bad, but you do have people like Lailendi who don't give a shit about others and that makes Fiscal cons look bad.

He only makes us look bad if you think he actually came from this planet. Most of us know the truth: He's an alien. And what do we do to aliens?

Exterminate them.

How? If I said all right wing people are then you'd have a point. But I didn't say that, I didn't even say most of them are.

In general moderate at either side is fairly good and needed. But atleast where I live, the rights Financial ideas and ideals have been either lacking, completely unfunded or based on some insane ideal like the "trickle Down effect" (which has never been proved, and often pointed to one of the biggest hoaxes made in modern politics and buisnesses).

I would argue that the Right in general has been pleagues by bad candidates for a while, and that has coloured the view of the right, as irrsponsible bigoted politicians WHO have one foot in corperate interrests and one if old values that can not truely exist anymore. It amazes me that nomatter where in the World, the Right wants to put these people up for representations of what they stand for.

In the US the Tea party is sadly what people have come to think of when they say "Right Wing" That is really damaging for the Right that when moderate, does often contain some fairly decent, smart people with a vision of the future.

They have just been drowned in the in the memory of what the Right wing has paraded as their ideals for a long time now.

Not at all.

I don't consider Hitler to be right wing for that matter either.

Well of the 4 people you listed I wouldn't start by classifying them as either right or left wing. They were all totalitarian schmucks at heart, their ideologies seemed less relevant to the fact that they all believed the ends justified their means, and their means being slaughtering all those that were in their way.

Lol reading comprehension fail.

But yeah, hate to break it to you bro, but the Republican Party (and the rightwing in general) has more homophobes than the Democratic Party/left.

I also very clear said that "I don't support the government putting restrictions on marriage"

You am just trying to make you understand an opposite point of view that I don't necessarily support, in the hope that you wouldn't be so judgmental and close minded towards those with different views than you, but I have clearly failed.

He was most definitely right wing wrt to social issues.

Would you also consider Stalin and Mao liberal? Those people are so far off the scale that they don't count IMO.

Nah, they're definitely not liberal. More like left-authoritarians.

So you would consider Hitler a "right-authoritarian" and not conservative? And is someone left leaning not always "liberal" in your definition (because in the common definition, they typically are)

I wouldn't call Hitler a "right-authoritarian" (fiscally he wasn't really that right-wing to be honest) but rather just an "authoritarian". Someone that is left-leaning is clearly not always liberal...I wouldn't call socialists, communists, anarchists, etc. "liberals".

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.^[1][2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property"

The Tea Party.

Almost forgot to mention. Republicans almost crashed the economy because they refuse to negotiate.

It's because many people see the right wing as lacking solid fundamentals. In other words they can't win elections, they can't pass bills, and most of all, they are an illegitimate party.

Just look at their record. It's not too hard to figure that.

I think they brought about the beginning of their own (political) end with the recent shutdown. They became a favored group due to their anger with the government as opposed to a promise of incredibly extreme/stupid actions.

The moment a minority faction of a political party falls out of favor with the American people is the moment they lose their political power because the majority no longer has to fear them.

I agree with your conclusion. Now that the business community is forming anti-Tea Party pacs the writing is on the wall (long term, at least. I think they may still have an election cycle to two in which they have some muscle). I don't think the Tea Party can continue to win primaries with the business donor community actively fighting them, and once the more establishment candidate is in the general election the rest of the base will fall into line to vote for them.

They've done a lot of damage to the Republican party, and it seems that the more establishment friendly politicians and donors have finally said, "Enough."

Surely what you meant to say is that Reagan and Thatcher pushed the reset button on Keynesian economics thereby saving capitalism from near death by inflation.

When I think of "right wing" I think of people who support lower taxes, smaller government, and personal responsibility. There are plenty of "extremist" examples on either side.

I don't think republicans vote in people who ever represent those values, or at least not in a long time. I'd love some decent examples where I'm wrong though.

Right-wing has become synonymous with religious zealotry. Right-wing Republicans campaign on "fiscal responsibility" but spend all of their time trying to force a religious agenda on the nation through legislation. They want the government to have complete control over the most personal and private decisions a person can make while removing all government oversight from corporations so they can do whatever they want. The Republicans have worked hard to make right-wing a bad thing, and they have succeeded.

Eh, I would have preferred it if they could have forced the Keynesians to explain and adapt to stagflation without greatly strengthening the cause of austerity and Randroid libertarianism in the public eye.

Hitler is considered as Right even though Nazism = Nationalism+Socialism so it's politically Right and economically Left.

@Hiddai: I don't know that a political party's name has any real significance when it comes to their actual policies and practices. The name of the ruling party in Japan translates into English as the Liberal Democratic Party but it is neither of those in practice.

It's true. Nazism was socialist party - for Germans only. So it can't really be called as socialist "by the book". Your example is pretty common these days for many parties in the far east who, outside, claim liberalism but everybody know they are communists. Words mean nothing lol.

Nor everyone wants to drink and party every day. I know that I do not. Some of the diliske against the Right-wing is due to truthfully bad decisions like the recent government shutdown. Other dislike is due to slander like in this thread. If anyone is interested in learning the truth, I suggest observing media which shows politicians speaking and political discussions. After some time, who is telling the truth and who is less honorably slandering others for vain reasons becomes easily apparent.

You don't seem to know what communism is.

Unfortunately i do know...too many here...

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. :P

@Hiddai: There are no communists anymore, if there ever were. In the case of the LDP, they are hardcore Japanese nationalists, not even close to being communists. In the case of the former (and future?) Soviet Union, they were imperialists masquerading as communists. In any case, here's to hoping that you aren't a right-wing nutcase.

Well i wasn't refering to this specific party (which i thought was communit but i was wrong. I don't know them). I was referring to specific parties who "mislead" about their views. The soviets may long gone but the communism is still in the heart of many people actually even though it's different from Karl Marx's views as things evolved over the years (like the Maoism).

everyone just needs to take it down a notch or two and we'll all be fine.....

Simple answer : because the media has painted the 'right' as all being a bunch of nut jobs like Ted Cruz. There are still a ton of moderate 'Right wing'/republican people out there (like myself) whos voice is not being heard.

So the second I open my mouth and tell people that I am a republican I get blasted by people who immediately think I am racist and homophobic and pro life etc etc...really annoying tbh~

It's like people have Hitler-trauma so when they hear "Right" they vomit lol

I don't think I've ever seen a super conservative, yourself included, who knows what the definition ever is. It's in the frikkin' dictionary and takes a whole two seconds to look up, but I see conservatives on here going by the pop culture idea of it.

Also, Nazi's called themselves Nazi's to mock the socialist party of Germany at the time.

Learn your history, and your dictionary definitions.

The soviet union was never communist. They claimed to be aiming for communism (one does not simply become a communist nation) but they never got close.

I did a little check now to see if i am wrong and i found out, as i said, Hitler actually WAS socialist (only economically) as he saw the communism his enemy. It seems like i still remember 1 or 2 things from my history lessons so don't bash me like a little kid...

Being right-wing is only considered "bad" among left-wingers. Bear in mind the demographics of people who play video games and patronize this site, they are typically younger, and necessarily more ignorant. The ignorance of youth naturally leads them to be more likely to subscribe to leftist values, which are predicated on ignorance of the nature of man.

Further, Nazism is a left-wing ideology. One of the biggest lies of the 20th century is the rebranding of Nazism as an "extreme right-wing ideology", as if it is the polar opposite of communism. This dishonest rebranding of National Socialism as a right-wing ideology has successfully led to many politically ignorant individuals (99% of this forum, for instance) into associating contemporary right-wing politics with Nazism. It was a great trick, and it still endures.

This is absurd. There were many and remain many communists. People who assert that the Soviet Union wasn't communist aren't worth taking seriously. Their entire argument is premised on the fact that the Soviet Union never achieved its unachievable utopia. So until Kim Il-Sung creates the Garden of Eden of earth, socialists like yourself will indefinitely state that communism has never existed in the history of man. It's like a circular logic, you subscribe to an ideology that is doomed to failure by any normal examination of success, the ideology then fails, and then you say the ideology was never properly implemented because utopia wasn't secured. You socialists remind me of that South Park episode where Stan and his father get hooked playing this video game where they endlessly chase the magic dragon, yet can never actually catch it. What you don't realize is that communism/socialism is defined by its chase (mass oppression, mass murder, mass starvation, etc), because it never gets where it claims its destination to be.

@returnedbro: Look up the definition of communism. The USSR was never really communist.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

I don't need to look it up. Not only do I understand it intimately on a personal level, but I've studied these ideologies academically. The running meme of "communism never *really* existed" tells those of us who are politically astute one thing: you are in absolutely no position to be pontificating about this subject matter with any credibility. I've heard it all before: pre-Soviet Russia hadn't yet industrialized to the point where Marxist dialectics prophesized a proletariat revolution, that Lenin never moved the proletarian dictatorship to the next phase of communist utopia, etc. It's all nonsense, and not worth serious consideration. The Soviet Union illustrated true communism in all its glory, but of course you won't let reality interfere with your fantastical subscription to your ideology. That'd require honesty and knowledge, two things you're unwilling or unable to secure and demonstrate.

@returnedbro: Communism is a state-less class-less society. The USSR wasn't. Please tell me where you studied this so I can make sure that I never get an education there.

By definition it wasn't a communism.

"is a socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless,^[1][2] and statelesssocial orderstructured upon common ownership of the means of production, "

I swear, right wingers wouldn't be looked as being stupid if they bothered to read.

This is a perfect example of what I was refering to earlier. People don't even know what the definition of communism is.

They attack the popular idea of it, not what it actually is. It's the perfect example of strawman and all it does is make them look stupid and dishonest.

From the dictionary. "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actualownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."

I don't see anything about genocidal states there.

Communism / Capitalism are economic stances. Conservative / liberal are political stances. Neither of them are mutually exclusive.

There are no policies that are inherently conservative or liberal. The two terms vary based on the circumstances of that particular society.

In essence, conservatism is just preserving a particular set of existing ideals (even if its communism) and liberal stances are those that progress or change away from it. What we consider to be left wing in our country can be completely right wing in another.