The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Political Compass

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · >>
nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#61New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 00:57:47
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Now we probably go back to the original point I was making a few thousand words ago before this pointless tangent that you have now admitted was a pointless tangent.

When I have time, I will find it what it was and get back to you


When did I admit that? The statement you quoted does not in any way contradict anything I have stated.
chaski On about 12 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#62New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 01:53:03
@nooneinparticular Said

When did I admit that? The statement you quoted does not in any way contradict anything I have stated.


There was a scene in the movie Pulp Fiction... one character asks another, "in a conversation do you listen, or do you wait to speak?"

The second character answered, "I wait to speak, but I'm trying to learn how to listen."

(Or something like that.)

It seems to me that this sort of thing happens a lot... even here on a forum site where a person has more than enough time to read... and maybe re-read a post before responding.

And then the misunderstandings kick in... the topic drift begins...

Note: I admit to being guilty of this.
bob_the_fisherman On July 06, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#63New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 03:45:09
@nooneinparticular Said

When did I admit that? The statement you quoted does not in any way contradict anything I have stated.


It was the implication I chose to elicit from your response without drawing this out further.

You seemed to suggest initially that all government action is authoritarian (possibly when speaking of Ayn Rand, from memory). But you have also conceded now that this is false. I figured we would just leave it and move on. Although I have really lost the tone of the debate now and don't really have time to read back through it all...
bob_the_fisherman On July 06, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#64New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 03:45:34
@chaski Said

There was a scene in the movie Pulp Fiction... one character asks another, "in a conversation do you listen, or do you wait to speak?"

The second character answered, "I wait to speak, but I'm trying to learn how to listen."

(Or something like that.)

It seems to me that this sort of thing happens a lot... even here on a forum site where a person has more than enough time to read... and maybe re-read a post before responding.

And then the misunderstandings kick in... the topic drift begins...

Note: I admit to being guilty of this.


I agree. Not all goats have four legs.
chaski On about 12 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#65New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 03:53:24
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I agree. Not all goats have four legs.



Of course... some only have three legs because a coyote ate one.

Meanwhile 6.9 earthquake in Southern California.... i was just out in that area... not that my visit & the earthquake were related...

Though a few friends have called me a avatar for/of natural disasters...

bob_the_fisherman On July 06, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#66New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 03:59:30
@chaski Said

Of course... some only have three legs because a coyote ate one.


I must admit I was expecting an entirely unrelated response similar to mine, but... meh

@chaski Said
Meanwhile 6.9 earthquake in Southern California.... i was just out in that area... not that my visit & the earthquake were related...

Though a few friends have called me a avatar for/of natural disasters...



The only thing in Australia that does not try to kill you is the land. It just sits still and allows everything else to sneak up on you... I have experienced one tremor in my life that barely made a glass of water ripple and that's it.
bob_the_fisherman On July 06, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#67New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 04:34:33
@chaski Said

Meanwhile 6.9 earthquake in Southern California.... i was just out in that area... not that my visit & the earthquake were related...

Though a few friends have called me a avatar for/of natural disasters...



I should have asked (although I just assumed you'd mention it... have you ever been in an earthquake?
chaski On about 12 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#68New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 04:46:30
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I should have asked (although I just assumed you'd mention it... have you ever been in an earthquake?



Yes.
chaski On about 12 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#69New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 04:58:04
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I should have asked (although I just assumed you'd mention it... have you ever been in an earthquake?



You have no idea how hard it was for me to not give you a ten paragraph answer...

...or maybe you do!



nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#70New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 06:46:53
@bob_the_fisherman Said

It was the implication I chose to elicit from your response without drawing this out further.

You seemed to suggest initially that all government action is authoritarian (possibly when speaking of Ayn Rand, from memory). But you have also conceded now that this is false. I figured we would just leave it and move on. Although I have really lost the tone of the debate now and don't really have time to read back through it all...


So you get all huffy at me when I choose implications from your statements, but you're free to do so against me?

Reread the statement you asked me to agree to again. I said that not all government actions are EQUALLY authoritarian. That is not the same as saying 'not all government action is authoritarian'.

If you want to go down this route, you have to make a judgement call on what government action is and isn't authoritarian. The problem is that YOU have decided to completely do away with the traditional definitions of such concepts. You attempt to argue that stricter borders are, in fact, policies that promote freedom. That it is a libertarian policy. If this is the way you want to go, then I need to be able to identify what is and isn't an authoritarian and libertarian policy under this framework. That becomes rather difficult when you won't tell me how you are defining these two concepts.

As an aside, these tangents that you accuse me of creating are a product of your own posts here, not mine. You said that Hitler was Far Left, just like Ghandi. I asked why would someone on the Far Left promote private ownership, union busting, and a romanticization of a bygone age. You sidestepped that by saying that that the definitions for the right and left were ineffectual and that the new paradigm is freedom vs. anti-freedom. Now, I'm trying to understand how that works. Every tangent we've been through has been because of something you said, not me.

I accepted that you changed the definitions of the political Right, Left, authoritarian, and libertarian, all for the sake of argument. I accepted that you completely discarded the political compass for a 'freedom vs. anti-freedom' scale, all for the sake of argument. I have done these things simply to move the argument forward, but I'm the one who is making this debate spin in circles, am I?
bob_the_fisherman On July 06, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#71New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 08:04:25
@nooneinparticular Said

So you get all huffy at me when I choose implications from your statements, but you're free to do so against me?

Reread the statement you asked me to agree to again. I said that not all government actions are EQUALLY authoritarian. That is not the same as saying 'not all government action is authoritarian'.

If you want to go down this route, you have to make a judgement call on what government action is and isn't authoritarian. The problem is that YOU have decided to completely do away with the traditional definitions of such concepts. You attempt to argue that stricter borders are, in fact, policies that promote freedom. That it is a libertarian policy. If this is the way you want to go, then I need to be able to identify what is and isn't an authoritarian and libertarian policy under this framework. That becomes rather difficult when you won't tell me how you are defining these two concepts.

As an aside, these tangents that you accuse me of creating are a product of your own posts here, not mine. You said that Hitler was Far Left, just like Ghandi. I asked why would someone on the Far Left promote private ownership, union busting, and a romanticization of a bygone age. You sidestepped that by saying that that the definitions for the right and left were ineffectual and that the new paradigm is freedom vs. anti-freedom. Now, I'm trying to understand how that works. Every tangent we've been through has been because of something you said, not me.

I accepted that you changed the definitions of the political Right, Left, authoritarian, and libertarian, all for the sake of argument. I accepted that you completely discarded the political compass for a 'freedom vs. anti-freedom' scale, all for the sake of argument. I have done these things simply to move the argument forward, but I'm the one who is making this debate spin in circles, am I?


I started reading back through our discussion, then was reminded why I got annoyed in the first place so stopped
the way you take everything to the absurd conclusion and attack that when I never said anything like that...

I'll state this very simply for you.

I do not believe that in the current state of the western world the ideas of right and left (when used to describe an individual), are good indicators of where someone stands on economic issues or the role of the state in the economy etc. In fact, if you look at the definitions these ideologies have, people often seem to be the opposite of what they are called.

Now to the why of it:

First, right and left are not absolutes, they are somewhat arbitrary and can be used by different people to mean different things. It's not like they have some objective, inarguable definition. They are theories.

Also, people are not theories, nor do they represent a theory absolutely, even if they claim to. Individual people or nations do not run along the train lines of any ideology, and even if they did not all people would agree that they are anyway, because they would say they're doing it wrong and I am the only true representation of "x" and so on.

I shouldn't need to qualify these things, but these days it does seem necessary.

Now, Tommy Robinson - is he right wing in any meaningful sense, let alone "far right"?

That depends on who is telling the story and how they define these terms. But I would say no.

He might be a nationalist, but he's absolutely not an ethnonationalist. However, nationalism is not exclusively a right wing thing. China is nationalistic. Other communist nations have been nationalistic, and unions were notoriously nationalistic up until not so long ago right across the west. Therefore, being nationalist is not simply a right wing practice.

Also, the heads of major tech companies are the opposite of nationalists, but they want enormous quantities of wealth and power residing in the hands of private individuals (themselves), who can use that power to manipulate whole nations. It is hard to call this left wing, but many of our globalist frens are called left wing (like ANTIFACT), even though they openly support global, private power overriding the state. Even if that power is used to silence someone like Tommy who speaks on behalf of the working class against private capital and state power (in fact, they especially want to silence the working class it seems to me).

Tommy, on the other hand, supports the British working class (no matter their color or country of origin), not just in terms of protecting children but also in the sense that he wants working class communities to have hope, jobs, security and a future for them and their children. He opposes global corporations and globalism generally. In the class struggle, Tommy fights for the working class against the chattering class, globalists and elitists.

This is far more left wing than right. Marx, to choose a name at random, would probably doff his hat to Tommy and recognise him as someone near to his own heart regarding class, then spit at those calling Tommy a Nazi for being bourgeois scum that need to be overthrown. I just can't see the right wing bit in there.

Aside from that;
Tommy opposes a dictatorial state.
He opposes the abuse of power by the state.
He supports Israel.

None of these stances by Tommy are traditionally considered far right positions. As a result Nazis dislike him (he calls himself a Zionist). Nazis do not like TR.

Despite this, the media and others call him things like far right, a Nazi and/or a fascist, and some, like our British friend here, act like one of Pavlov's dogs, but instead of drool at the sound of a bell, she goes into hysterics and engages in the mandatory, Orwellian 'two minutes of hate' to assuage her feelings of something or other when she hears his name.

People like me are likewise called these same things, yet economically I am far more left wing than right. Can I be on the left yet "far right" at the same time? Can Tommy? Of course not.

So, what is the thing motivating the absurd accusation that people like me and Tommy are far right (apart from blind ignorance and hate for the working class by the important people)? It is things like wanting borders, an end to global corporatism, and supporting free speech that are the issue.

The economic stuff barely rates a mention in discussions of why Tommy or me are "far right."
gakINGKONG On 54 minutes ago




, Florida
#72New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 09:13:21
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I started reading back through our discussion, then was reminded why I got annoyed in the first place so stopped
the way you take everything to the absurd conclusion and attack that when I never said anything like that...

I'll state this very simply for you.

I do not believe that in the current state of the western world the ideas of right and left (when used to describe an individual), are good indicators of where someone stands on economic issues or the role of the state in the economy etc. In fact, if you look at the definitions these ideologies have, people often seem to be the opposite of what they are called.

Now to the why of it:

First, right and left are not absolutes, they are somewhat arbitrary and can be used by different people to mean different things. It's not like they have some objective, inarguable definition. They are theories.

Also, people are not theories, nor do they represent a theory absolutely, even if they claim to. Individual people or nations do not run along the train lines of any ideology, and even if they did not all people would agree that they are anyway, because they would say they're doing it wrong and I am the only true representation of "x" and so on.

I shouldn't need to qualify these things, but these days it does seem necessary.

Now, Tommy Robinson - is he right wing in any meaningful sense, let alone "far right"?

That depends on who is telling the story and how they define these terms. But I would say no.

He might be a nationalist, but he's absolutely not an ethnonationalist. However, nationalism is not exclusively a right wing thing. China is nationalistic. Other communist nations have been nationalistic, and unions were notoriously nationalistic up until not so long ago right across the west. Therefore, being nationalist is not simply a right wing practice.

Also, the heads of major tech companies are the opposite of nationalists, but they want enormous quantities of wealth and power residing in the hands of private individuals (themselves), who can use that power to manipulate whole nations. It is hard to call this left wing, but many of our globalist frens are called left wing (like ANTIFACT), even though they openly support global, private power overriding the state. Even if that power is used to silence someone like Tommy who speaks on behalf of the working class against private capital and state power (in fact, they especially want to silence the working class it seems to me).

Tommy, on the other hand, supports the British working class (no matter their color or country of origin), not just in terms of protecting children but also in the sense that he wants working class communities to have hope, jobs, security and a future for them and their children. He opposes global corporations and globalism generally. In the class struggle, Tommy fights for the working class against the chattering class, globalists and elitists.

This is far more left wing than right. Marx, to choose a name at random, would probably doff his hat to Tommy and recognise him as someone near to his own heart regarding class, then spit at those calling Tommy a Nazi for being bourgeois scum that need to be overthrown. I just can't see the right wing bit in there.

Aside from that;
Tommy opposes a dictatorial state.
He opposes the abuse of power by the state.
He supports Israel.

None of these stances by Tommy are traditionally considered far right positions. As a result Nazis dislike him (he calls himself a Zionist). Nazis do not like TR.

Despite this, the media and others call him things like far right, a Nazi and/or a fascist, and some, like our British friend here, act like one of Pavlov's dogs, but instead of drool at the sound of a bell, she goes into hysterics and engages in the mandatory, Orwellian 'two minutes of hate' to assuage her feelings of something or other when she hears his name.

People like me are likewise called these same things, yet economically I am far more left wing than right. Can I be on the left yet "far right" at the same time? Can Tommy? Of course not.

So, what is the thing motivating the absurd accusation that people like me and Tommy are far right (apart from blind ignorance and hate for the working class by the important people)? It is things like wanting borders, an end to global corporatism, and supporting free speech that are the issue.

The economic stuff barely rates a mention in discussions of why Tommy or me are "far right."


When do you start your vlog or radio show?

We need some traction on this.
bob_the_fisherman On July 06, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#73New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 09:40:22
@gakINGKONG Said

When do you start your vlog or radio show?

We need some traction on this.


Hmm, thanks for the compliment. Many would think I need medicating or incarcerating though, rather than a show of my own...
nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#74New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 15:14:42
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I started reading back through our discussion, then was reminded why I got annoyed in the first place so stopped
the way you take everything to the absurd conclusion and attack that when I never said anything like that...

I'll state this very simply for you.

I do not believe that in the current state of the western world the ideas of right and left (when used to describe an individual), are good indicators of where someone stands on economic issues or the role of the state in the economy etc. In fact, if you look at the definitions these ideologies have, people often seem to be the opposite of what they are called.

Now to the why of it:

First, right and left are not absolutes, they are somewhat arbitrary and can be used by different people to mean different things. It's not like they have some objective, inarguable definition. They are theories.

Also, people are not theories, nor do they represent a theory absolutely, even if they claim to. Individual people or nations do not run along the train lines of any ideology, and even if they did not all people would agree that they are anyway, because they would say they're doing it wrong and I am the only true representation of "x" and so on.

I shouldn't need to qualify these things, but these days it does seem necessary.

Now, Tommy Robinson - is he right wing in any meaningful sense, let alone "far right"?

That depends on who is telling the story and how they define these terms. But I would say no.

He might be a nationalist, but he's absolutely not an ethnonationalist. However, nationalism is not exclusively a right wing thing. China is nationalistic. Other communist nations have been nationalistic, and unions were notoriously nationalistic up until not so long ago right across the west. Therefore, being nationalist is not simply a right wing practice.

Also, the heads of major tech companies are the opposite of nationalists, but they want enormous quantities of wealth and power residing in the hands of private individuals (themselves), who can use that power to manipulate whole nations. It is hard to call this left wing, but many of our globalist frens are called left wing (like ANTIFACT), even though they openly support global, private power overriding the state. Even if that power is used to silence someone like Tommy who speaks on behalf of the working class against private capital and state power (in fact, they especially want to silence the working class it seems to me).

Tommy, on the other hand, supports the British working class (no matter their color or country of origin), not just in terms of protecting children but also in the sense that he wants working class communities to have hope, jobs, security and a future for them and their children. He opposes global corporations and globalism generally. In the class struggle, Tommy fights for the working class against the chattering class, globalists and elitists.

This is far more left wing than right. Marx, to choose a name at random, would probably doff his hat to Tommy and recognise him as someone near to his own heart regarding class, then spit at those calling Tommy a Nazi for being bourgeois scum that need to be overthrown. I just can't see the right wing bit in there.

Aside from that;
Tommy opposes a dictatorial state.
He opposes the abuse of power by the state.
He supports Israel.

None of these stances by Tommy are traditionally considered far right positions. As a result Nazis dislike him (he calls himself a Zionist). Nazis do not like TR.

Despite this, the media and others call him things like far right, a Nazi and/or a fascist, and some, like our British friend here, act like one of Pavlov's dogs, but instead of drool at the sound of a bell, she goes into hysterics and engages in the mandatory, Orwellian 'two minutes of hate' to assuage her feelings of something or other when she hears his name.

People like me are likewise called these same things, yet economically I am far more left wing than right. Can I be on the left yet "far right" at the same time? Can Tommy? Of course not.

So, what is the thing motivating the absurd accusation that people like me and Tommy are far right (apart from blind ignorance and hate for the working class by the important people)? It is things like wanting borders, an end to global corporatism, and supporting free speech that are the issue.

The economic stuff barely rates a mention in discussions of why Tommy or me are "far right."


And the topic drifts again.

Anyway, let me see if I understand this correctly. You're saying that despite the fact that you believe that Nazism is a far left ideology that is nothing more than a different flavor of Communism, and the fact that you believe that Marx would endorse Tommy's actions and beliefs, you believe that calling Tommy a Nazi is a misnomer? Despite the fact that you also acknowledged that people can hold views on opposite points of the political spectrum at the same time. Despite the fact that you have already discarded the classical interpretations of left and right and thus render those terms meaningless. Is that right?
bob_the_fisherman On July 06, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#75New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 23:14:45
@nooneinparticular Said

And the topic drifts again.

Anyway, let me see if I understand this correctly. You're saying that despite the fact that you believe that Nazism is a far left ideology that is nothing more than a different flavor of Communism, and the fact that you believe that Marx would endorse Tommy's actions and beliefs, you believe that calling Tommy a Nazi is a misnomer? Despite the fact that you also acknowledged that people can hold views on opposite points of the political spectrum at the same time. Despite the fact that you have already discarded the classical interpretations of left and right and thus render those terms meaningless. Is that right?


I'm not really sure the topic has drifted. I have two basic contentions that I have presented here.

1. Left and right are no longer a good predictor of where someone stands on things like the economy and the role of government.

2. Nazism should be defined as far left. Like fascism, it is simply another variation of communism. It is collectivist, centralist, identitarian (to use today's terminology), and it is authoritarian in practice. I see no reason to believe any of this is right wing, and no one has provided any reasons, let alone good ones, for why I should change my mind on this.

@nooneinparticular Said
Anyway, let me see if I understand this correctly. You're saying that despite the fact that you believe that Nazism is a far left ideology that is nothing more than a different flavor of Communism, and the fact that you believe that Marx would endorse Tommy's actions and beliefs, you believe that calling Tommy a Nazi is a misnomer?


Are you saying that defendinf workers = left wing = being a communist = being a Nazi, or are you being disingeuous again by claiming that somehow I have said that being left wing = being communist which = being Nazi?

If you're not making that claim or saying that I have, this is the type of disingenuous comment that I spoke of earlier. Try the nuance thing that I prefaced my entire point with.

As a rule, people don't go from, "we should help our workers," to rounding people up and gassing them to death in their millions.

If you disagree with a point I make, address that. But this just seems disingenuous to me.


@nooneinparticular Said
Despite the fact that you also acknowledged that people can hold views on opposite points of the political spectrum at the same time. Despite the fact that you have already discarded the classical interpretations of left and right and thus render those terms meaningless. Is that right?


I have not discarded them, I am saying they do not fit at the current time. Do you agree or not?

I am arguing that the simplistic notions of left and right, at this point in time, are not very useful. And I gave a whole list of points in defence of that claim.

Someone being labelled as far right these days is usually as a result of them doing something like defend workers, call for secure borders, speak in support of free speech etc.

Tommy is considered far right when it is hard to see how he is even on the right. Can people like me and Tommy be libertarian left and far right at the same time? Is this reasonable? is the term far right meaningless, misapplied, or something else?
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 1698
New posts   Politics
Sun Oct 28, 2007 @ 20:23
7 551
New posts   Bands & Artists
Sat May 15, 2010 @ 14:39
6 1186
New posts   Skepticism
Thu Sep 10, 2015 @ 17:52
7 989
New posts   Physics
Tue Feb 24, 2009 @ 18:58
29 3142