The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Political Compass

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · >>
chaski On about 7 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#76New Post! Jul 07, 2019 @ 02:22:31
HILLARY!





bob_the_fisherman On November 15, 2019
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#80New Post! Jul 08, 2019 @ 09:56:36
@nooneinparticular Said

You propose to do away with the past scale because of this issue, and then create your own scale that is "more useful" but has the exact same fatal flaw that led you to abandon the old one to begin with? How does that work?


I'm not sure I said we should do away with it. I'm fairly certain I said I no longer believe it is useful. These are not the same thing. People can do whatever the hell they want.

You don't have to agree with me that freedom is a more useful metric these days.

Having read back over your first couple posts to see how this began, you mentioned that whether Nazism is seen as on the left or right is largely a "counting game." I agree. And most academics who've done the counting in the past, and even more so now, are on the left, with many self reporting as on the far left I believe (although I don't have that data to hand, but there is at least one study undertaken in the US I've seen cited that says this, and anecdotally working across a few universities over the years, it is beyond merely plausible). [see footnote 1]

To claim they have a vested interest in palming off undesirables is reasonable. As such I'm disinclined to accept their assertions without some justification. So far you have said that the Nazis harked back to a form of traditionalism in their desire for an ethnostate (this is me paraphrasing you, not claiming you said this exactly, so chill).

That is a reasonable argument. However, the obvious rebuttal is that the Chinese and Vietnamese governments have done similar things in appealing to racial virtue (for example, the Chinese government invoked Taosim when it suited them to).

As an aside: I think where these discussions always seem to go wrong is when people start asking me to write a virtual doctoral thesis in defence of my positions, when I never, ever, at any time, present an hypothesis from a doctoral thesis in a discussion here. And I don't expect other people to produce such a thing either. I don't ask for that from others as a rule and have no interest in being forced to do so for my ideas.

As far as Tommy's politics I'm not asking you to take my word for it, just giving my opinion as someone who has followed him for a few years. My anecdotal account was not aimed at being considered valid proof - this is not a doctoral thesis but a discussion/informal debate. You are free to accept my claim, reject it, call me a liar, call it irrelevant etc... whatever...

"Identitariansm" as a far right, white thing seems to me to be a politically expedient fabrication from left wing academics. I happily admit I have little interest in the work of most of them. It comes from dozens of years of working with and around them. An academic is as biased as the rest of us, and peer review is now little more than naval gazing.

I can see the sense in differentiating the Identitarian essentialism of any ethnonationalist, irrespective of their race (as it is not just Europeans/white people who have considered themselves racially superior to others. Japanese, Chinese, some African tribes etc., have also considered themselves superior to others based on race), and the current identity politics of the left which would deny such essentialism while engaging in a range of inconsistent ideas around a non unified narrative.

That's fine.

I see no reason to accept it as a right wing thing though, without some justification being given for it. Any statement to the effect that "academics say thus" is not one I am inclined to accept. Appeals to authority aren't valid.

If there is a reason I'm happy to consider it, and you can cite someone or not. I care about the argument, not who said it.

You say being pro-capitalist and anti globalist are at odds with each other. But this is an oversimplification as I see it. Sure, certain characterisations of capitalism see the role of government being very limited, and private capital being able to move freely when, where and how it wants, including in global corporate entities. However, when capitalism was first discussed by people like Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations (from memory), this idea of globalised capital was not even a consideration. There is no reason why capitalism should be said to automatically include corporatism.

Just as there are varying concepts on the left, from complete state ownership of all means of production and abolition of private property, through to a heavily regulated private sector privately owned but controlled by government and mandated to work for the "common good," so too there are different ideas on what capitalism is, and what to if any extent it should be limited by government in the interest of the nation.



[Footnote 1] An extensive study of 8,688 tenure-track professors at 51 of the 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. published by the National Association of Scholars found that the ratio of faculty members registered as Democrats compared to those registered Republican is now a stunning 10.4 to 1. If two military colleges that are technically described as "liberal arts colleges" are removed from the calculations, the ratio is 12.7 to 1. https://www.dailywire.com/news/30222/how-politically-biased-are-universities-new-study-james-barrett

I'm not sure the rampaging left wing bias of academia in the Arts needs to be argued, but provided this for you just in case.
nooneinparticular On November 14, 2019




, Hawaii
#81New Post! Jul 09, 2019 @ 03:47:04
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I'm not sure I said we should do away with it. I'm fairly certain I said I no longer believe it is useful. These are not the same thing. People can do whatever the hell they want.

You don't have to agree with me that freedom is a more useful metric these days.

Having read back over your first couple posts to see how this began, you mentioned that whether Nazism is seen as on the left or right is largely a "counting game." I agree. And most academics who've done the counting in the past, and even more so now, are on the left, with many self reporting as on the far left I believe (although I don't have that data to hand, but there is at least one study undertaken in the US I've seen cited that says this, and anecdotally working across a few universities over the years, it is beyond merely plausible). [see footnote 1]

To claim they have a vested interest in palming off undesirables is reasonable. As such I'm disinclined to accept their assertions without some justification. So far you have said that the Nazis harked back to a form of traditionalism in their desire for an ethnostate (this is me paraphrasing you, not claiming you said this exactly, so chill).

That is a reasonable argument. However, the obvious rebuttal is that the Chinese and Vietnamese governments have done similar things in appealing to racial virtue (for example, the Chinese government invoked Taosim when it suited them to).

As an aside: I think where these discussions always seem to go wrong is when people start asking me to write a virtual doctoral thesis in defence of my positions, when I never, ever, at any time, present an hypothesis from a doctoral thesis in a discussion here. And I don't expect other people to produce such a thing either. I don't ask for that from others as a rule and have no interest in being forced to do so for my ideas.

As far as Tommy's politics I'm not asking you to take my word for it, just giving my opinion as someone who has followed him for a few years. My anecdotal account was not aimed at being considered valid proof - this is not a doctoral thesis but a discussion/informal debate. You are free to accept my claim, reject it, call me a liar, call it irrelevant etc... whatever...

"Identitariansm" as a far right, white thing seems to me to be a politically expedient fabrication from left wing academics. I happily admit I have little interest in the work of most of them. It comes from dozens of years of working with and around them. An academic is as biased as the rest of us, and peer review is now little more than naval gazing.

I can see the sense in differentiating the Identitarian essentialism of any ethnonationalist, irrespective of their race (as it is not just Europeans/white people who have considered themselves racially superior to others. Japanese, Chinese, some African tribes etc., have also considered themselves superior to others based on race), and the current identity politics of the left which would deny such essentialism while engaging in a range of inconsistent ideas around a non unified narrative.

That's fine.

I see no reason to accept it as a right wing thing though, without some justification being given for it. Any statement to the effect that "academics say thus" is not one I am inclined to accept. Appeals to authority aren't valid.

If there is a reason I'm happy to consider it, and you can cite someone or not. I care about the argument, not who said it.

You say being pro-capitalist and anti globalist are at odds with each other. But this is an oversimplification as I see it. Sure, certain characterisations of capitalism see the role of government being very limited, and private capital being able to move freely when, where and how it wants, including in global corporate entities. However, when capitalism was first discussed by people like Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations (from memory), this idea of globalised capital was not even a consideration. There is no reason why capitalism should be said to automatically include corporatism.

Just as there are varying concepts on the left, from complete state ownership of all means of production and abolition of private property, through to a heavily regulated private sector privately owned but controlled by government and mandated to work for the "common good," so too there are different ideas on what capitalism is, and what to if any extent it should be limited by government in the interest of the nation.



[Footnote 1] An extensive study of 8,688 tenure-track professors at 51 of the 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. published by the National Association of Scholars found that the ratio of faculty members registered as Democrats compared to those registered Republican is now a stunning 10.4 to 1. If two military colleges that are technically described as "liberal arts colleges" are removed from the calculations, the ratio is 12.7 to 1. https://www.dailywire.com/news/30222/how-politically-biased-are-universities-new-study-james-barrett

I'm not sure the rampaging left wing bias of academia in the Arts needs to be argued, but provided this for you just in case.


I was going to address all this individually, but I realized that's what got us here in the first place. So instead, I'm just going to ask one simple question. How do you define anti-freedom and freedom in this new metric you've created? How do you determine what is and isn't an anti-freedom or freedom policy?
bob_the_fisherman On November 15, 2019
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#82New Post! Jul 09, 2019 @ 05:19:25
@nooneinparticular Said

I was going to address all this individually, but I realized that's what got us here in the first place. So instead, I'm just going to ask one simple question. How do you define anti-freedom and freedom in this new metric you've created? How do you determine what is and isn't an anti-freedom or freedom policy?


To give a very broad definition:

Acts that limit freedom: Any act of government that impedes the right of an individual or group to speak, work or move freely, is an anti-freedom measure. Exceptions to this include words or actions that impede the freedom of others through violence, force, intimidation or coercion, slander and things of that kind. People should not be free to engage in these acts.

Now, I will clarify here by saying (this is where the grey bits come in), that governments also have to weigh up competing interests.

By this I mean, allowing the wealthy to freely exploit the poor is an anti-freedom act on behalf of government.

This then requires a definition of freedom, for which I say, See paragraph 1, Re: acts that limit freedom.
nooneinparticular On November 14, 2019




, Hawaii
#83New Post! Jul 10, 2019 @ 00:36:57
@bob_the_fisherman Said

To give a very broad definition:

Acts that limit freedom: Any act of government that impedes the right of an individual or group to speak, work or move freely, is an anti-freedom measure. Exceptions to this include words or actions that impede the freedom of others through violence, force, intimidation or coercion, slander and things of that kind. People should not be free to engage in these acts.

Now, I will clarify here by saying (this is where the grey bits come in), that governments also have to weigh up competing interests.

By this I mean, allowing the wealthy to freely exploit the poor is an anti-freedom act on behalf of government.

This then requires a definition of freedom, for which I say, See paragraph 1, Re: acts that limit freedom.


'Weigh up competing interests', well there's kind of the rub ain't it.
Philosophically, you are rather similar to the Left. The difference is that you disagree with the Left on the state of the world. In practice this ends up meaning that you embrace policies that are counter to your philosophy. Normally this would create an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance and strain, so in order to avoid that, you created an entirely new political framework in which you can freely classify and re-classify anything you wish into whatever category you wish based on your own personal preferences at any time.

If any policy can become pro or anti freedom at any moment, then the entire framework of the system collapses, and it becomes nothing more than an ever changing excuse to hide behind.
gakINGKONG On 47 minutes ago




, Florida
#84New Post! Jul 10, 2019 @ 02:18:21
@nooneinparticular Said

'Weigh up competing interests', well there's kind of the rub ain't it.
Philosophically, you are rather similar to the Left. The difference is that you disagree with the Left on the state of the world. In practice this ends up meaning that you embrace policies that are counter to your philosophy. Normally this would create an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance and strain, so in order to avoid that, you created an entirely new political framework in which you can freely classify and re-classify anything you wish into whatever category you wish based on your own personal preferences at any time.

If any policy can become pro or anti freedom at any moment, then the entire framework of the system collapses, and it becomes nothing more than an ever changing excuse to hide behind.



"Weighing Competing Interests"

-I can rightly say that the US was saving lives by bombing Hiroshima. It ended the war and stopped the killing, therefore pro-freedom.
bob_the_fisherman On November 15, 2019
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#85New Post! Jul 10, 2019 @ 03:29:46
@nooneinparticular Said

'Weigh up competing interests', well there's kind of the rub ain't it.
Philosophically, you are rather similar to the Left. The difference is that you disagree with the Left on the state of the world. In practice this ends up meaning that you embrace policies that are counter to your philosophy. Normally this would create an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance and strain, so in order to avoid that, you created an entirely new political framework...


What policies am I embracing that run counter to my philosophy?

There's no dissonance for me in my stance. Grey areas are normal in human interaction, not a sign of dissonance. Sadly, we don't get to put things in boxes and tie pretty bows around them in the world of human interaction.

The government should limit its interference in people lives, and should act to ensure that other people are also limited in their ability to impinge other people's lives.
nooneinparticular On November 14, 2019




, Hawaii
#86New Post! Jul 11, 2019 @ 06:30:15
@bob_the_fisherman Said

What policies am I embracing that run counter to my philosophy?

There's no dissonance for me in my stance. Grey areas are normal in human interaction, not a sign of dissonance. Sadly, we don't get to put things in boxes and tie pretty bows around them in the world of human interaction.

The government should limit its interference in people lives, and should act to ensure that other people are also limited in their ability to impinge other people's lives.


Funnily enough you only wish to acknowledge grey areas when you use them to uphold your own points. The Left you so despise has reasoning not so dissimilar to your own, but in order to distance yourself from them you attempt to justify how their chains of logic are faulty while yours are not, all while using the same chains of logic that they do.
bob_the_fisherman On November 15, 2019
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#87New Post! Jul 11, 2019 @ 08:23:18
@nooneinparticular Said

Funnily enough you only wish to acknowledge grey areas when you use them to uphold your own points. The Left you so despise has reasoning not so dissimilar to your own, but in order to distance yourself from them you attempt to justify how their chains of logic are faulty while yours are not, all while using the same chains of logic that they do.


WTH are you banging on about?
nooneinparticular On November 14, 2019




, Hawaii
#88New Post! Jul 12, 2019 @ 05:22:20
@bob_the_fisherman Said

WTH are you banging on about?


You degrade the Left for attempting to change the laws of the land in order to push their own sanctimonious ideas about order and freedom, yet if given the chance you would not hesitate to push your own sanctimonious ideas about order and freedom through law reform. Just because you fundamentally disagree with the Left on what constitutes order and freedom, does not make your stances any less or more valid, and it certainly doesn't make them any more or less sanctimonious.
bob_the_fisherman On November 15, 2019
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#89New Post! Jul 12, 2019 @ 06:39:35
@nooneinparticular Said

You degrade the Left for attempting to change the laws of the land in order to push their own sanctimonious ideas about order and freedom, yet if given the chance you would not hesitate to push your own sanctimonious ideas about order and freedom through law reform. Just because you fundamentally disagree with the Left on what constitutes order and freedom, does not make your stances any less or more valid, and it certainly doesn't make them any more or less sanctimonious.


Fair enough. You think it is sanctimonious to value freedom. You are allowed to believe that.

It took awhile, but I guess we finally reached the pointless point you were failing to make
nooneinparticular On November 14, 2019




, Hawaii
#90New Post! Jul 22, 2019 @ 05:27:37
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Fair enough. You think it is sanctimonious to value freedom. You are allowed to believe that.

It took awhile, but I guess we finally reached the pointless point you were failing to make


I've said the same thing in multiple different ways trying to get the point across, but you still misunderstand what I'm saying. At this point, it might simply be easier to allow you to attack this hollow strawman you've set up instead of attempting to correct you again, so have at it. Yes, clearly my point has been that it is sanctimonious to value freedom.

Clearly you don't actually consider what anyone else tells you and only reinterpret what they say through your own limited perspective. What's good for the goose and all that jazz.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Sat Jul 11, 2009 @ 23:06
30 1666
New posts   Politics
Sun Oct 28, 2007 @ 20:23
7 542
New posts   Photography
Fri Dec 14, 2007 @ 17:26
0 828
New posts   Movies
Thu May 01, 2008 @ 15:14
5 349
New posts   Movies
Sun Dec 30, 2007 @ 02:00
8 471