> Projection is pretty rampant.

This reminds me exactly of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). The accusation is offered in lieu of a good argument because it helps the accuser avoid noticing the “derangement” in their own thinking.

It’s also telling that it is given the moniker “syndrome”. It is called such in order to discredit the accused; such a “syndrome” is a reason not to take someone seriously, regardless of the actual content of their speech.

Actually, now that I’m writing this, I recall there’s often talk of Liberal “hysteria”. No talk of what others are hysterically saying, nor the meaning behind it, just the “hysteria”. Perhaps not seeming as a projection but certainly as another excuse to dismiss a perspective they don’t want to think about or discuss.

Mental health issues are an excuse to dismiss any individual or their beliefs in American Conservatism, so naturally American Conservatives have no self-reported mental health issues because they don’t want themselves or their beliefs to be be dismissed.

> I forgot to mention that I'm an atheist. I call myself "religious but not spiritual". I was super reluctant to go to anything called "church" until my partner dragged me along 10 or so years ago, and the religion I belong to now has no particular theological creed. Reclaiming religious language (like "church") and disassociating it from the baggage of conservative organized religion is something very interesting to me. It's like the word "god", which can mean a big white dude in the sky, or it can just mean the way the universe works. (Aka monotheism and panentheism).

Ah I see. I'm open to spiritualism. But calling something a church leads to an insta-pass from me. Which is a kinda personal hangup. But yes definining something yourself is a very typical progressive point. Try that in a conservative church, there you really have to stick with established dogma, colour within the lines. But anyway you said the same thing in different words I think.

> I think this is one of the major sticking points a lot of progressives have that lead to shallow relationships. Deep community often takes work, change, and sacrifice. I don't mean changing who you are - just how you interact with others, how you open up, and how/what you are willing to give.

> Without buy-in (monetary, skills, helping others, etc.), it's not really a community. It's just a social interest group, and that's not going to provide the kind of psychological safety and deep connection that contributes to well being.

Ok this is a point where we really differ in opinion :) I feel the complete opposite. A community where I have to change isn't really 'real' to me. Because it's not really me that is a member, it's a twisted role I'm playing. It just becomes a mindless ritual then, not something worth anything to me. I don't feel invested because I'm just playing some role.

I used to live in a pretty conservative place and it was hard to find a place to belong, but now I live in a big city and my life has become so much more full. My connection to friends is much deeper. We talk about deep personal problems and insecurities, about sex, about traumas. We really open up and show our real selves (and often bodies). I've never really had that before. Things are more fluid yes, sometimes I'm really close to one friend or group and sometimes to another, but it doesn't matter. We're all on our own journey but we travel together with the people that align with us at the time. I feel I'm really progressing in my life now and living it more fully. In the conservative place I couldn't do that because so many things were taboos or just frowned upon.

And yes we help each other too. If someone is moving house we all show up to help, if a friend has a computer problem they tend to come to me. And the others help me with things I can't do on my own. <3

Talking about some shared ideology that is set in stone (tablets :) ) or books would never bring that to me. Because I change over time too, even if I align at one point I will not later. And the world changes too.

> But in my (biased) experience, there are few multigenerational progressive spaces designed to encourage kids, elders, adults, etc. to connect meaningfully.

I have deep connections with people ranging from 18 to their 70s. Embrace different includes not allowing ageism.

> Contributing further to the lack of structure, wisdom, and leadership that can allow an organization to do big work.

See, this is the part that does not matter to us at all. Doing stuff some leader wants done is not something we care about at all. We don't have a shared agenda and we don't want one. Some organisations do, but they tend to be made up of different people over time, that align with the mission at that point in life. It's rare for them to stay in there for their whole life.

The shared goal thing is definitely a huge difference between conservative and progressive communities, as you mention. But my point is the lack of that doesn't matter. I do think it is one of the reasons that conservatism is so succesful in the world. Because they do have an agenda and the means (also financial) to push it through. Our communities are always struggling with money, but it's also because that's not a thing we find really important.

What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work building homes? The cost of a house is mostly labor. The only meaningful way to get the cost down is to reduce the cost of labor. By the properties of supply and demand, the only realistic way to reduce the cost of labor, aside from giving up on the idea of having a home, is to see more people doing it. Which also solves the challenge of those who are in the business currently being booked up for years in advance, making it impossible to build even when cost isn't an issue. Jump right in. The construction industry will be very happy to see the new warm bodies. They are sorely needed.

> homelessness

What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work offering therapy/support, opening their homes to negate the homeless part, and maybe also open their wallets to give those in that situation a start to rebuild? I'll grant you it is questionable how effective that is — homelessness tends to stem from deep issues that may even be impossible to fix — but certainly the system isn't magic. It can only do what people can do. The so-called system is just people, after all. But, none of that requires the system. The people can step up and do it on their own.

> wage theft

What is the system going to do other than place workers in a de facto union that leverages its power for certain baseline advantages? That is all it has ever given labor in the past. That doesn't require the system either, of course. The people can join their own independent union on their own accord to extend their demands. History has well and truly proven that.

> "delay, deny, defend"

The Amish have shown that you don't need insurance if you have strong community. Do the liberals have no way to find it in their hearts to actually become a community? If not, it would be funny as it is always the conservatives who are said to be heartless and selfish. But if it is the liberals who are, in fact, the heartless, selfish ones you can still formalize it in what is known as mutual insurance. The system already offers the solution for this one. People just need to step up and put in the manual labor to see it happen.

> abortion rights

Now you are getting into much greater complexity, but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement. The liberals can choose to not enforce that which surrounds the issue. We've been here before with things like cannabis, so it is not unprecedented. Technically illegal in the US, but nobody is going to put in the effort to stop you as they don't actually believe in it. If there is enough care to maintain enforcement with respect to abortions, perhaps the desire to see change isn't actually there? A society doesn't function well on the whims of an individual (as the people of the US are starting to learn from a certain orange individual). One does need to be careful to not get caught up in their own personal desires.

> school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence

You've got me on this one. I have no understanding of how this has become a problem. A few generations ago the kids used to literally take guns on the bus to use in the school's rifle range and no human was ever shot in the process. Now gun are banned, but humans in those schools are getting shot at a frightening, and seemingly increasing, rate. It is so counterintuitive and bizarre. What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here?

> This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals.

Right, but the idea posited by the original comment is that conservatives are generally accepting of their own laziness. They won't do it either, but are sympathetic when nobody else will in kind. Is that a fair distinction? I'm not sure, but one to take up with the original comment.

> It's just kind of human nature.

To some degree, but we also have a lot of lingering evidence in the historic farming communities of people stepping up and fixing their problems. Where I grew up, the supply company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The telephone (now internet[1]) company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The insurance company, going back to your earlier point, was established and continues to be owned by the customers. I could go on and on. They didn't wait around for some nebulous system of outsiders to fix their problems, they just did it. This "someone else should do it" idea, to the extent that it has become, is rather modern. So what has changed in that regard?

[1] Another good modern issue, meaning access to quality high speed internet, that many believe can only be solved systemically despite plenty of contrary scenarios where people have just stepped up and fixed it on their own.

There are always outliers, but it is unlikely that there is really anyone more poor than students subsisting on student debt. Those in other financial hardship situations aren't usually granted ability to go so far into the red. Schools in rural areas aren't entirely unheard of, but rare. The vast majority of these people are going to be found in cities. And these people tend to be left-leaning.

> It's largely a matter of perception.

Quite true. Those students usually don't think of themselves as being poor. There is probably something to be said about city folk in general seeing themselves as being much better off than they actually are (cities are known to offer hope and optimism), and thus align with the "well off" leanings even when they aren't. Whereas the poor in rural areas know that they are poor, so they have no illusions about aligning with the leanings that caters to the poor.

> in terms of yearly earnings

I've studied the income data pretty closely and the median income is quite often significantly lower in cities. Granted, this may be because of the aforementioned students occupying the population with little-to-no-income, but either way that doesn't really hold in the general case. There are definitely specific rural areas that are exceptionally hard up, but not as a rule. More often, cities are places of extremes – where you find exceptionally rich people, and exceptionally poor people, while in rural areas people fall into being much more equal.

Which makes sense. That's what cities are for: To be able to concentrate capital so that a few winners can take all. Something that is generally not possible in rural areas where the capital is necessarily spread out (becoming less true with the rise of information capital, but historically so at least).