I can’t say I’ve been using Lemmy for long, but from the get-go it seems that the communities, memes, opinions that get upvoted seem to reflect left-wing ideas.
I’m certainly not complaining, it honestly feels like a breathe of fresh air compared to other social media sites that seem to shift further and further to the far right, though I am curious to hear why this might be the case? Does FOSS tend to attract more left-wing minded people, or does this just happen to be a broadly left-wing microcosm/bubble?
Hope you all have a great day.
The philosophy behind FOSS is inherently left wing and anarchist; communities working together to provide and produce tools for the common good, without a profit motive. Coupled with the lack of advertising and promotion of the sites, people have to seek them out, leading to a self-selecting user population that skews left :)
I would say that FOSS typically draws a more educated crowd, and right wing rhetoric and propaganda typically target those of lesser education and lower cognitive ability, simply because those people are the most likely hosts for rightoid brain worms. Why do colleges skew heavily left, gee it must be brainwashing /s
Eh, there’s plenty of educated right wingers. Not fascists as much, but the kind of fiscally conservative economists who preach austerity are often as not highly educated, just lacking in empathy.
There are definitely plenty of well educated, intelligent fascists as well. It’s pretty dangerous to start thinking that what separates two ideological groups is intelligence.
I believe what they were separating was Fascist leaders versus fascist followers.
I was mainly responding to the previous comment which characterized right-wingers as having “lesser cognitive ability”. Just saying that that kind of thinking sets up a “we’re superior” mentality that can too easily lead to the same kinds of consequences as thinking you’re superior based on race or social status. There are so many environmental and experiential factors that go into where a person lands politically and how effective certain forms of propaganda are on them. Blanket statements that characterize entire people groups as less intelligent are not in any way accurate or helpful.
Just saying that that kind of thinking sets up a “we’re superior” mentality that can too easily lead to the same kinds of consequences as thinking you’re superior based on race or social status.
It already does, it’s called ableism and it has such deep roots in society it is everywhere no matter political leaning, which is why it is rarely addressed - because most of society still sees it as perfectly acceptable that disabled people are inferior (even though ableism impacts them too, not just because accessibility and inclusion benefit everyone, but because people just don’t like to think about getting hit by a car, having a stroke, or just growing old, nor about their child being born neurodivergent for example).
I think what you said is true. But you’re referring to people who have an actual handicap and are discriminated against for it.
What I’m referring to is the idea of allowing myself to believe that a people group are less intelligent than I am just because they don’t align with me politically or ideologically. There is no actual handicap for which they are being discriminated against, simply having a different life experience and different view point is enough. It’s ironically a deeply fascist mentality…and I agree it is everywhere.
You’re speaking of pundits and politicians whose opinions are public and widespread. There is little reason to believe that those folks are sincere in their public statements. They are motivated by greed to lie in an effort to sway the opinions of uneducated people.
Among the general public, those that sincerely hold conservative political views are cognitively impaired. Source: they vote for things that are objectively against their own prosperity.
The educated and the well-travelled may have a broader set of view points to see how many different ideas and values work (or don’t work) in practice.
I don’t disagree on some just lacking empathy. But I also think not all education creates exposure to a wide range of ideas and values that stick (or the education is just too narrow), so you’ll still find plenty of people who are educated on paper, but not cognizant of a broad set of world views. I also think we are too quick to label foreign ideas==bad ourselves. Empathy is a two way street. The key in navigating this may be in identifying when an idea comes in good faith or if it is hostile.
deleted by creator
I think pretty much everyone views their political ideology as “the one that stands for freedom”, and it just comes down to what it means to be “free”, and the follow up of free from what.
I feel like libertarians would love the concept of FOSS and decentralization, and I don’t think anyone would argue they skew left.
So, I disagree that FOSS is inherently left wing. I think it’s attractive to the left wing for many good reasons. I think people project their own politics onto whatever they love, and things can be loved by very different groups for different reasons.
I feel like libertarians would love the concept of FOSS and decentralization, and I don’t think anyone would argue they skew left.
Yup, there has always been a large libertarian contingent in the OSS community.
As a left winger myself…
… I’m not sure Foss is inherently left wing. Inherently anti authoritarian for sure, but I can totally see a libertarian type making a pro-FOSS argument from a capitalistic-individualistic and it being rather sensible. (Aaaaas long as we ignore the ways it’d contradict other beliefs right wing liberals tend to hold, but yknow. Compartmentalisation is a human superpower)
I think I’d still argue the free open source part is inherently left wing. Why would I, a right wing libertarian, lend my time to developing a piece of software that I am unable to make a profit from? I have no motive.
Something like bitcoin is the kind of tech project of that mould that i think attracts the right wing libertarian. Just my opinion though.
Why would I, a right wing libertarian, lend my time to developing a piece of software that I am unable to make a profit from? I have no motive.
Because you do stand to gain regardless. “I have my code on the source of <major FOSS project every tech guy has heard of>” is like. Amazing portfolio material for any job interview. I had a friend get a job in the games industry (though they regret it to this day because the game industry sucks–) with nothing on his resumé except for a smattering of mods for popular games.
Any pro-capitalist person with a functioning brain will acknowledge the role of non-monetary “Profits” in every human relationship, yanno?
That’s true, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the FOSS ethos runs in direct conflict with the ideals of capitalism and private ownership, and libertarians are nothing if not fanboys of those things.
Being able to do what you want is a part of private ownership. Some people just like making their code available to everyone.
Communists create FOSS projects. Libertarians also contribute.
Paradox solved! /s lol
Yeah. It’s long been said Libertarians are just Republicans that want to smoke weed and distance themselves from the outwardly racist rhetoric. They are inherently selfish just like Republicans. They don’t want to help the poor, but they would balk at the notion of actively hurting the poor.
Libertarian here. According to you I don’t want to help the poor so can you please explain to me why I’m spending hours every month doing volunteer work that has positive impacts for the disadvantaged?
It’s long been said Libertarians are just Republicans that want to smoke weed and distance themselves from the outwardly racist rhetoric.
Some are but not all. The people who repeat that line really don’t like to be confronted with the reality that there’s a lot more to a libertarian than weed. As an example the party platform started pushing LGBTQ rights clear back in the late '70s, long before anyone else was.
There certainly are selfish bastard libertarians but undesirables exist in every party and I maintain that we shouldn’t define a group by its worst members.
Just because you in isolation are doing it. Does not mean it is a characteristic of all economic liberals. More importantly. We know that Aid and Outreach is more effective when it is handled by larger organizations. Larger than private individuals. And of course larger than Church congregations. Something rothbard liberals heavily oppose. Mutual Aid absolutely should be one of the primary things our government is involved in. Especially a Dejacque libertarian government.
Libertarians and other groups even in the United States supported lgbtq far earlier than 1970. Don’t get me wrong I’m glad that for all the damage Rothbard, the Koch brothers, and others have done masquerading as Libertarians that is one of the things they’ve kept lip service to at least. They won’t actually do anything to actually improve the lives of lgbtq. But at least they support not overtly visibly discriminating against them.
There certainly are some selfish bastards in every ideology. But economic liberal rothbard Libertarians have a higher concentration than natural. It’s possible that you might be an actual libertarian. But you would be more the exception in the party than the rule.
According to you I don’t want to help the poor so can you please explain to me why I’m…
Lemme stop you right there. It’s a decidedly libertarian trait to read a broad generalization and conclude someone was referring to them personally. Take a step back and peruse the most widely available libertarian positions.
Because you vote that the government shouldn’t help the poor. Whatever you do on your own personal scale is meaningless compared to the impact that could be caused if you voted to have the government do the helping.
As to why you hold such contradictions in your mind, I don’t know, maybe you feel guilty about depriving the poor of healthcare and education that you try to make out for it? Maybe you are a good person with good intentions who never really thought that whatever help a single person can give is meaningless on the large scheme of what the government could give so you think you are helping by serving soup to the people you deny healthcare, or maybe you’re just an egoistic bastard who likes to see people in misery to feel better so you vote for them to be miserable and you do volunteer work to be near them. I don’t know, I’m not in your head, but your political views directly contradict your thoughts, if you think people deserve help when they’re vulnerable you’re left leaning.
and distance themselves from the outwardly racist rhetoric.
The ones I met were even more racist. They were just afraid of saying it in public because they thought the feds were watching them, and wished they didn’t have to live with that fear.
Why would I, a right wing libertarian, lend my time to developing a piece of software that I am unable to make a profit from?
You are making a reductionist argument that the only thing that motivates a libertarian is profit. It is certainly a motivator but it’s certainly not the only one. Libertarian’s have a long history of association with FOSS, for example my own stretches back to the mid-90s. I have no desire to make money from it but I have a strong desire to stay out of the clutches of BigTech as much as possible and so I contribute to FOSS as I can.
Something like bitcoin is the kind of tech project of that mould that i think attracts the right wing libertarian.
A lot of libertarians push on cryptocurrency not because of a profit motive but because of the freedom and privacy aspects. To use myself as an example I don’t hold crypto as an investment but rather as a way of holding a currency that isn’t subject to the US Federal Reserve system.
Are there some libertarians who fit your descriptions? Absolutely there are, and they are generally referred to as Anarcho-Capitalists, An-Caps for short, but just like every Democrat isn’t a Progressive not every libertarian is an An-Cap.
What’s your issue with big tech?
I know a lot of libertarians oppose corporatism because they say the corporations market power and monopolies derive from government, but for big tech they mostly come from economies of scale and network effects, neither of which I think right wing libertarians oppose.
If you oppose it because corporate power, even if gained through fair free market principles, is a barrier to liberty than I think your on the left for a libertarian. The recognition that corporate power can be just as tyrannical and coercive as state power is not an idea held by most libertarians in the u.s. who tend to focus solely on state power. Recognizing both puts you to the left of most of them, and on the far left you have Chomsky who identifies as a socialist libertarian and thinks corporate/capitalist power is so much more of a threat than state power that we should give the state more power to be able to reign in corporations.
I don’t think those are inherently opposed, the whole point of libertarianism being about liberty. Power gained through free market principles is no different than any other power, and thus can and should be opposed through competing ideas/services. If I don’t like your service being provided, I or anyone should be free to provide a competing service that matches my needs/values.
Being a libertarian doesn’t require keeping Fountainhead as your Bible and worshipping at the feet of oligarchs instead of politicians/the State, and I would argue selling your soul to the company store is as antithetical to liberty as selling your soul to a centralized State. But as you’ve indirectly mentioned, there is a rather huge spectrum under the libertarian umbrella.
I won’t speak for other libertarians, as I know there are those that think do worship the oligarchy, and many of my views do probably put me on the left side of libertarianism. If I didn’t believe that government has a role is keeping free markets free and providing stability and peace for liberty to exist (most fiscally conservatively paid for by collapsing all social safety nets into an actual UBI requiring miniscule overhead, Universal Healthcare, and more Georgist tax codes), I’d probably be closer to the anarcho-capitalists maybe? Maybe some offshoot or flavor of Minarchist?
Bitcoin is open source too. And I guess there’s a history of libertarians getting involved in projects like Linux as well (ESR comes to mind).
Still, I’d wager most are attracted to FOSS are left wing. A lot of capitalists can’t comprehend giving something for free to the community.
Yeah. I don’t know what the % breakdown is, but I get the sense that while the general community is inherently anti-corporate/anti-commodification, there are some that view this in the left wing sense of communities supporting each other and some who view this more of as a consumption/voting with your wallet individualized choice. They recognize that some or even all corporations are bad, but think opting out of those structures without directly challenging them is all that they need.
But like I said, idk what the actual distribution of these views are. It’s just the sense I get from seeing some of the comments.
Profit isn’t the only individual motivator. Power is another big one, even if it is power over a very small fiefdom. At a certain point that’s all money is: a way to keep track of how much power you have. That’s why they keep going for the high score.
FOSS isn’t inherently left wing. It is often charitable work but that’s far from unique to the left wing. That can also just stem from “I wanted this program to exist and it didn’t, but I don’t want to put even more effort in to monetize it.” Plenty of FOSS projects start as someone wanting to learn something early on in their career as well (which is both a pro and a con because … if you’re learning you might be making some bigger mistakes).
Anarchism … I just don’t really agree with that at all. Lots of larger FOSS projects do very much have governing bodies that decide what to do and how it shall be done. In many cases FOSS authors are a one person governing body making all the big decisions.
Organized charitable work is far from anarchy even though anarchism dreams of everything being organized charitable work.
@haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com, I thought you might like this comment 🏴🙂
deleted by creator
I mean you signed up on lemmy.marxism-leninism. Yeah they tend to lean left, lol.
But yeah your observation indeed is is correct. Not only does lemmy lean left it often leans pretty far left too. It might feel like a breathe of fresh air but it’s still a bubble and echo chamber. It’s the same as truth social but the exact opposite. Nothing wrong with that per-se but it’s a good thing to keep in mind. Factual information is regularly downvoted here not because it’s false but because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
I don’t come here for the far left. I come here for the lack of the far right. The far left are some crazy nutters, too, but I think for the most part they are well meaning and that’s a damn sight better than the far right who just wear hatred on their fucking sleeves.
It means I get some shit for not wanting to live in a big city or being happy driving a car, but I take solace in the fact that I’ll be long dead before far left ideals take hold in any significant way. Meanwhile… fascism is a far more immediate threat, and that’s the one group of fuckers I give myself leave to unabashedly hate.
There’s no scarcity of hate on Lemmy either. It simply flies under the radar for most part because it’s directed at things we hate too. Exactly as is the case on far-right forums as well. Just read the comments of any thread about Elon, Police, Ai, Facebook, Twitter, Capitalism, Israel and so on. You even admit participating in it yourself.
The far-right thinks of themselves as well meaning just as well. Nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guys. Claiming they intend to be hateful and evil is disingenuine. That’s only how you view them. Their view of us is hardly any different. Both views are wrong.
If you think hating on fascists is just more of the same (and to be clear, there is a lot of ambiguity in what you said) then I’m going to have to disagree. There is no nobility in loving your enemy until they exterminate you.
As for the rest, you come at me a bit argumentative, but I don’t really disagree. But does it make it an echo chamber if I don’t fight everyone I disagree with? I’ve been arguing on the internet since before the WWW existed and nothing has changed, least of all anyone’s minds. I get upvotes when I manage a particularly eloquent turn of phrase that captures the zeitgeist, but as gratifying as that is I enjoy the back and fourth a lot more. I’d rather have someone thoughtfully and respectfully disagree with me.
No, I don’t think hating on fascists is the same but that assumes we’re speaking of actual fascists instead of more or less normal people who happen to lean right and get called fascists because it’s an easy label to throw at someone because we don’t like them and they’re making noises that remotely sound like something a fascist would make. It’s equivalent to the right calling someone a communist for advocating for things like UBI or higher taxes for the wealthy.
People like Elon Musk gets called a nazi here daily. I don’t care how much one hates him, that’s just a blatantly false accusation but it gets the upvotes because what they’re essentially saying is “boo Elon” and that’s something most Lemmings agree with. This just dillutes the meaning of these labels to the point that people then are sceptical even when they’re used appropriately.
It’s not about loving your enemy. Atleast not in my case. I’m only trying to remind people that groups consist of individuals and no two of them are the same. I don’t like how both sides so dishonestly represent eachother’s views on social media and use these extreme labels so lightly. I think in most things in life the truth is somwehere in the middle so wether it be left or right, the further one goes in that direction the more likely they’re to be at the wrong side of history. I’ll much rather trust the judgement of someone who whose beliefs are such a mixed bag that they’re near impossible to place on the political spectrum.
I’m also just rambling here now. I don’t even remember what we were talking about anymore.
I was trying to make clear I was talking about the far right. The folks who think the Proud Boys include some good people.
I’m not really sure about your Musk talking point though. For someone who definitely isn’t a Nazi, he sure does a lot for them. But, to argue with myself, he’s likely too drugged out and too much of a narcissist to have an ethos. Fucking nihilists.
I’d be fine with hating fascists if the word referred to actual fascists and not everyone who even slightly disagrees with you.
Also, I don’t think physical violence against people based on their political views is justified, no matter how horrendous the views are.
I don’t believe in solving problems with aggression, but I’ve never held it against anyone who punched a Nazi. I don’t approve, but I don’t lose sleep if others choose differently.
I suppose to be fair, I would feel the same about any violent authoritarian political view, not exclusively fascism.
Even if the left is overall more tolerant, there’s still plenty of toxicity that alienates people and pushes them rightward.
I think the idea that MLs are a far left ideology is pretty questionable honestly. But that is the conventional wisdom certainly.
The definition most people use for left and right isn’t really consistent or coherent. If you do try to iron out those inconsistencies, you’ll find that MLs don’t really fit with the rest of the left.
Because reality has a left-wing bias.
Heh. Because lefties are just conservatives who got mugged by reality, and once that happens there’s no going back? ;-)
I don’t know what that has to do with anything. I’m a lefty, life has never mugged me. I’m a leftist because bad things happen to everyone and the solutions isn’t to hurt people until they’re better people. Giving people time and resources just makes people and society better.
In general and on the aggregate, I am with you.
However, as an anecdote, I took in a couple of very conservative Christians who got evicted, gave them time (to pay off bills) and resources (food, water, power, internet, a bed, a roof…now at 4 months), and they’re not lifting a finger to help around the house and expect our kid to do their dishes and take out their trash.
Sometimes people are just selfish greedy assholes and there’s no changing that even with time and resources. And trust me they will be getting evicted from my house quite soon (with proper notification by state law).
I hope this experience doesn’t make me a bitter old fool. I truly do. Because I love the concept of helping others, it just tends to backfire more than I’d like.
Damnit this would’ve been my immediate response, too.
It has to do with profit motive. The Fediverse, and the Lemmy sub-protocol, arose when for-profit enterprises (TwitX and Reddit, respectively) began prioritizing their own bottom line over the enrichment of their users.
This has always been the Faustian bargain of social media: you are the product and you receive free content at the cost of advertisements and data mining.
Once the monopolists of the social sphere overstepped their bounds - got too invasive, or tried extracting value directly from the end user - free alternatives formed.
Naturally, the only people self-aware enough to be put off by the exploitation of these monopolists were left-leaning. There’re a lot of people out there who will pay to be cocooned in an echo chamber (viz Truth Social) but leftists like to pretend they’re too good for that shit.
So here we all are, enjoying a methodone drip of social media without all of the optimization and dopamine-tweaking hooks that for-profit socials live by.
It’s not a bad outcome, really, and if someone somehow wants to start a counter-culture right wing node on the fediverse, nothing is stopping him except a total lack of willing participants.
Say what you will about leftists; at least they try new things - and conservatives, as you would expect from the name, do not.
It’s not a bad outcome, really, and if someone somehow wants to start a counter-culture right wing node on the fediverse, nothing is stopping him except a total lack of willing participants.
And the fact, that most instance would instantly defederate
This almost feels like bait, your instance is Lemmy.ml. The ml stands for Marxist-Leninist, your home instance is literally the home for far-left ideology. You’ll still see a leftist bant for the reasons commenters have mentioned, but the single biggest reason is that your instance is owned and operated by them.
It’s the second largest instance, plus it’s the original instance. I can see why one or both of those facts might draw someone. Maybe they thought it was hosted in Mali!
Lemm.ee is actually bigger in terms of userbase now. And SJW is about the same size. But .ml still hosts a lot more communities so I guess that also counts for something
Wait that’s really what it stands for? I keep seeing some commotion over it every so often but I thought it was just an abbreviation of a country or something.
Its the top level domain of mali, but the devs picked it because it can also mean marxist-leninist.
Sort of like how twitch uses .tv, even though it isnt situated in tuvalu
it stands for what now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ml
Yes, the TLD belongs to Mali. But the reason why the creators of lemmy.ml picked that TLD is because they’re Marxists. They’re also the creators of Lemmy itself, which is another reason why Lemmy communities tend to be pretty far left: the first instance was literally Marxist, and presumably most of the early users leaned in that direction.
It’s funny, the grand majority of users here are from Reddit. The influx was insane, I remember clearly seeing the numbers.
I think there are a lot of bad actors here. People with floods of accounts. I don’t know why this is tolerated to the degree it is… But my theory is that there are far less crazies than many might guess. Most folks here are great.
Yeah, there are some serious whackos on there. It’s a very vocal part of the population. I highly recommend folks try other instances if they aren’t hard-left.
deleted by creator
lemmygrad and .ml are far from being anarchocommunist. They are authoritarian as hell.
Tankies made anarchists face the wall, never forget
Link? Just curious
Sure thing, try this one it’s a good read.
https://libcom.org/article/1921-1953-chronology-russian-anarchism
Generally speaking, the statement “Tankies made the X face the wall” is true for all X. Anarchists, monarchists, fascists, capitalists, Mensheviks, Jews, Doctors, poets, authors, musicians, peasants, soldiers, factory workers, Marxists, Bolsheviks, wives and children of all of the above, and eventually even Stalinists.
The tankies sure are a contentious people
Depends on the server you’re on. Lemmy found popularity when a group of communists had their subreddit(s)banned
That’s actually part of the reason why the original devs started Lemmy.
One could argue that as alot of us are exredditors we would be the more progressive or left side of the crowd. Something happened we didn’t like so we left it behind for something we hope will be better and put in the effort to make it so as opposed to staying with what we know and really waiting things out before choosing a new direction. It would have been easy to stay with reddit, hell I could go back in an instant and it would be like I never left, but I chose this new path and I’m sticking with it. That is what progress is all about
the right loves corporations it doesn’t go out of its way to avoid them
People seeking to be free from corporate overlords, and desiring a place to speak their minds and who also don’t have an issue with spending a little time and effort tend to have a more liberal mindset. Regrettably as primates, we also have a tendency to form tribes and give short shrift to any viewpoints outside of those we ourselves believe in. I personally would prefer a dialogue of equals where we can debate our differences and agree to disagree or even find the places where we do agree and can come together. However, that enlightened state of being escapes most all of us. Instead, I will regress to thumping my chest and hooting at you.
throws poo
There are sections of both the right and the left that have anti-authoritarian tendancies.
The libertarian right tends to view things purely in terms of government over reach, whilst the left tends to view things in terms of the power of capital.
Leftists saw Facebook pushing propaganda for the highest bidder, Reddit trying to be safe to sell to investors and twitter basically becoming a project to reflect Elon Musk’s personal opinions.
Out of that came a bunch of attempts at creating new social networks. The right wing attempts were not cognisant that the aforementioned were the natural result of trying to get rich off it, while the left attempted to make it impossible to get into that position.
It skews young, and young skews left.
Now if only young voted…
Lemmy users seem older than most social media to me. Why is Star Trek TNG so popular here if not?
My guess is the fat part of the bell curve is 25-40 here, probably similar to Twitter, younger than Facebook, older than tik tok and maybe Instagram.
Facebook is basically a dinosaur. The demographic that were the first users ran away right around the time when their parents got accounts.
TNG has young fans and you can have enough old farts like me around to populate a TNG forum while the whole is still mostly younger.
Re-runs.
Education.
No for real, a lot of right-wing thinking comes from just parroting disinformation and being in their own echo chamber circles.
Educated people are more likely to ‘lean left’:
Environment: Higher education institutions often emphasize critical thinking, questioning of traditional norms, and exposure to diverse perspectives. This can lead individuals to adopt more progressive or liberal views.
Diversity: College and university settings are typically more diverse, exposing students to different cultures, ideas, and lifestyles.
Rationalism: Educated individuals may place a higher value on scientific reasoning and empirical evidence, which can align more with policies and positions typically associated with the left, such as support for climate change action and public health initiatives.
Perspective: Higher education can lead to an understanding of economic inequality and systemic issues. Educated individuals might support policies aimed at reducing inequality and improving social welfare.
Career: Many educated individuals work in fields such as academia, healthcare, and social services, where left-leaning values like equity, public good, and social justice are prevalent.
Generational: Younger generations, who are more likely to be college-educated today than in the past, tend to have more progressive views on social issues, such as LGBTQ+ rights and racial equality.
Education is also ‘pushed’ by a lot of adults when I was a kid. I thought it was kinda normal / lame because duh, of course it’s important. I didn’t get grasp deepl WHY until I was older and realized it’s really a root causal issue of today’s problems.
Educated people are more likely to ‘lean left’
I would qualify that as “Educated people with a conscience and a good ethical or moral base”.
There are plenty of very smart, very evil right wingers out there.
Mitch McConnell, Manchin, Shkrelli, Ben Shapiro… I suppose you have a point.
I think all the right wingers who were dissatisfied with reddit migrated to voat?
Exploding heads, too, but everyone defederated from that.
Truth Social and whatever Jack Dorsey and Thiel are up to
Right-wing propaganda would have you believe that most good things are left-wing (and thus bad).
Right-wing propaganda would have you believe that most good things are left-wing
One of the few things I agree with them on!
