Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

"right" & "left"?

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 30, 2011, 07:53:19 AM
You're abusing language.  If you're going to redefine terms and refuse to explain yourself when questioned, how do you expect anybody to understand you?

Some people here confused because they're desperately clinging to the belief that leftism is workable, and therefore want to consider neo-conservatism as a form representative of all conservatism.

When you're talking to your college friends, none of whom know even a tiny turdlet about real life, homilies like "right and left are the same, we need to just join hands" sound profound.

Think about what you're suggesting:

Right and left were always the same... so why the differentiation? Answer: I dunno, we live on a planet without logic!

Where do the terms right and left originate?

How do you tell the difference between a rightist and a leftist?

You're familiar with Haidt's research, aimirite?

Really? Really? People who complain that you use language differently than the norm must be closest leftists and / or think left and right are the same? Really?
 

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 30, 2011, 02:13:21 PM
Left and Right are basically determined by the role of Tradition. Wheter Tradition is God or Nature, human organization has a place around it. The Left practically denies an important role of Tradition, while the Right thinks of it as the most important.

It can be simplified to nature vs nurture, and you can see it in a good amount of political philosophers, but "newspaper" politics, and real politics, are much more pragmatic.

Yet, I think that this dichotomy is false. I prefer a Nolan chart, or any other model that understands the levels and dimensions of political meanings. In human life, Nature and Nurture can't be found in their pure state, neither such dichotomy bring a concrete and workable whole of beliefs of their respective holders. A socialist eugenecist or a capitalist conservative who believes in hierarchy and merit, which one is closer to the Right?

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 30, 2011, 02:23:03 PM
The Right-Left paradigm is usually applied to Western democracies and other systems which developed in the same era, hence it is much better suited to describing the features of these political systems than older models, this is the first part of the problem.  When applied to modern Western civilisation (in other words the culture which developed in America and then spread to Europe in the 20th century), these terms are always associated with enlightenment values (liberal humanism), the right wants to preserve these values roughly as they were when they developed, the left wants to extend this train of thought indefinitely with no regard for the consequences, but the very reason that this is catastrophic is that their premise is flawed.

You're changing terms on us here.

We're talking right and left as they are differentiated, not as they have become convenient in the Western liberal democracies.

They clearly have opposite principles:

Leftism: individual equality
Rightism: consequentialism and holism

You are playing definition games to try to evade this obvious condition.

What happened to this forum?

All standards of discussion went out the window. Now, you're bickering like Redditors, Farkers, Something Awfulers and other internet trash.

Argue this point like a philosopher or GTFO.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 30, 2011, 02:26:14 PM
This site used to speak truthful words to BOTH the left AND the right and sought to bring them together into a realistic consensus that would set realistic goals that would bring America closer to reality.

This site is doing the same thing it has always done: speak truth.

It doesn't pander to either group; however, it stands for the principles of logic and adaptation. This makes it closer to the right.

In fact, it and its authors tend to view leftists as having a mental disorder.

You are demonstrating this mental disorder right now. You're trying to redefine the debate to be convenient to your leftist bias.

What part of "everyone is equal" makes any sense and is coherent with science or history? NONE OF IT.

You, Eleison, Chains, etc. could have debated this point but instead, you're trying to make a definitional attack WITHOUT USING ANY SOURCES and your best hope is to limit discourse to the USA post-1792 and hoping for the best.

That might fly at ITT Tech's "Filosofy for Ruby Developers" program but not here.

Quote
‎"What is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, 'politically correct' types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist." - Ted Kaczynski

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 30, 2011, 06:06:04 PM
Conservationist, sir:

Your writings I have valued, a lot, over the years. Now, I am trying as hard as I can to understand what is going on lately and what you are saying here.

===

"Some people here confused because they're desperately clinging to the belief that leftism is workable, and therefore want to consider neo-conservatism as a form representative of all conservatism.

When you're talking to your college friends, none of whom know even a tiny turdlet about real life, homilies like "right and left are the same, we need to just join hands" sound profound."


Some people here are confused because they're desperately clinging to the belief that rightism is workable, and therefore want to consider neo-liberalism as a form representative of all liberalism.

When you're talking to your self, whom pretends to know even a tiny turdlet about real life, homilies and axioms like "the left destroys and rots civilizations, conservatism creates and preserves them" sound sensible, even profound.

===

But really, much like Dysfunctional Josh, who does not realize that his films are only appreciated by those who are alienated enough to kick around the dead genre that is feminist noire, it seems you do not realize that your idea of conservatism is only understood by those who are aliented enough to differentiate between conservatism as political neo-conservatism and conservatism as a perennial tradition of sane ideas and healthy values.

===

Leftist college kids don't know jack about life? Well, no shit. But as an adult who claims to know something about life, do you dismiss them as know-nothing leftists, or do you actually see them for what they really are -- misguided youths -- and attempt to communicate with those few among them that will and can listen?

The reality of the situation is remarkably simple: You have a message for humanity. 90% of humanity lacks the will (a result of society / nurture) to understand your message, let alone act on it. Even if they did have the will, most do not have the ability (a result of biology / nature). Of the remaining 10%, some just so happen to presently identify as leftists, some as rightists, some as both, and some as neither.

It used to be that you had a goal, an aim. It used to be that it did not matter what you did to accomplish it, as long as it was accomplished. It used to be that you were consequentalists. It used to be that you understood the difference between appearance and reality, between formlessness and aimlessness.

Now, for some reason, it is as if you think formlessness necessarily means aimlessness, and so took on the form that happens to be the closest to your aim. While this may seem like a pragmatic / practical step taken to actually get something done, it is not: by becoming reactionary conservatives and uncommunicative ideologues, you are reaching less people, preaching to a choir, turning away potential allies, and getting less done. Basically, you are becoming unresourceful and dysfunctional.

... You guys are remarkably intelligent and insightful writers, and you do not see this? :/

===

"This site is doing the same thing it has always done: speak truth. It doesn't pander to either group [left or right]; however, it stands for the principles of logic and adaptation. This makes it closer to the right."

Yes, yes, yes, I agree with all of this. As I have said in the past: the right is no where near perfect, but it is a lot closer to reality than the left. What I disagree with is the decision to speak only to the right at the expense of losing potential allies from the left. I mean, I could totally be in the wrong here, but is that decision really a logical adaptation?

"In fact, it and its authors tend to view leftists as having a mental disorder. You are demonstrating this mental disorder right now. You're trying to redefine the debate to be convenient to your leftist bias. What part of "everyone is equal" makes any sense and is coherent with science or history? NONE OF IT.

I DO NOT consider everyone equal. I do not consider myself a leftist by any means. If you think I have a leftist leaning or leftist bias of any kind that I myself have not detected, please tell me, so that I may work to get rid of it. I do not think I am desperately clinging to an unfounded and delusional belief that leftism is workable. I do not think that the left and right were always the same. I am not saying we are all one so let's hold hands. I am not singing kumbya.

You, Eleison, Chains, etc. could have debated this point but instead, you're trying to make a definitional attack WITHOUT USING ANY SOURCES and your best hope is to limit discourse to the USA post-1792 and hoping for the best."

I cannot speak for them, but I am NOT limiting discourse to the USA post-1792. I am simply trying to tell you that most people (the potential audience of your writings), whether they consider themselves leftists or rightists, quite simply ARE currently limited to definitions of conservatism from USA post-1792, and for that reason, you need to make it much more clear what you mean when you say conservatism in order to bring them out of their current USA post-1792 limitation.

===

If you want to reorient a society / a person away from transient garbage and toward eternal values, you need to communicate with it / them. To my mind, praising the right is not effective communication.

I am actually now coming to a point in my life where I have the extra time to continue my previous promotion of this site... but this time, to also officially join, follow orders, and complete tasks assigned to me. I really want to contribute here, but I would first appreciate some real explanation as to what is going on with you guys lately, or as to what my misunderstanding is.

Thank you.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 30, 2011, 06:41:52 PM
The Right-Left paradigm is usually applied to Western democracies and other systems which developed in the same era, hence it is much better suited to describing the features of these political systems than older models, this is the first part of the problem.  When applied to modern Western civilisation (in other words the culture which developed in America and then spread to Europe in the 20th century), these terms are always associated with enlightenment values (liberal humanism), the right wants to preserve these values roughly as they were when they developed, the left wants to extend this train of thought indefinitely with no regard for the consequences, but the very reason that this is catastrophic is that their premise is flawed.

You're changing terms on us here.

We're talking right and left as they are differentiated, not as they have become convenient in the Western liberal democracies.

They clearly have opposite principles:

Leftism: individual equality
Rightism: consequentialism and holism


Most people would prefer to use those terms as they exist in a practical sense.  If we're just talking about abstract categories then I doubt there is much of a disagreement, but you seem to be interested in arguing for the sake of it.  If the definitions you have given above are what we're talking about, then I'll happily agree that the right is right and the left is wrong, however I think that these definitions are too abstract and likely to confuse people unless you explain what you are talking about in the first place. 

Also I'm not sure why you want to believe that everyone who has questioned you in this thread is a closet leftist, the tone of these accusations is hysterical and it would be best to cease making these comments for the sake of your credibility.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 31, 2011, 03:35:34 PM
Most people would prefer to use those terms as they exist in a practical sense.
Do those terms, as they exist in colloquial language, have any real meaning?  The practical senses of these words have become warped.  Regardless, I fail to see how these terms are being misused by individuals on this site.  Even the idiotic right thinks in terms of consequences, while the left remains obsessed with fictions like rights.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 31, 2011, 08:46:36 PM
The point of this thread, as Conservationist pointed out, is to discuss to essential nature of right and left. That's why i posted current empirical research on the topic of the psychological character of politics. This is revealing that the left are dominated by old (evolved) psychological dispositions to attend to suffering and injustice (equality). So Conservationist is correct in his apprasal of 'left'. And the right are dominated, according to this research, by old (evolved) psychological dispositions to attend to purity (something like clenliness, hygene, etc) and hierarchy (see apes). So again this is pretty close to giving empirical support to the philosophy of 'right' espoused around here.

Whether the right embody the values of 'consequentialism, holism, evolution...' in a practical context is another issue, as I went on to point out. The right (referring more to the modern right) seem to me to be all too ready to focus on tradition, not consequences. In other words they look backwards and not forwards. They do not evolve ideas. They do not engage in cultural evolution, as opposed to biological evolution. I could be charged with going at the straw man (the modern right not the 'traditional right') but it really seems as though the modern right are getting more and more of a wrap around here.

I agree, drop the right/left tripe. Focus on the essential logic of the ideas and not emotive labels. It's not doing anyone any favours because people think the modern right is being supported around here which is an embarassing idea.

The modern right basically want monotheism, mono culture, and defend enlightenment values of objective truth, human nature and political-economic values of individual liberty,
The modern, post-modern, left (not communists) are more supportive of religious and ethnic differences, but bash enlightenment values of objective truth, human nature, and they believe that valuing political/economic liberty results in the powerful exploiting everyone else. There is a mixed bag of wisdom in the modern spectrum.

Re: "right" & "left"?
November 02, 2011, 01:13:15 AM
Most people would prefer to use those terms as they exist in a practical sense.
Do those terms, as they exist in colloquial language, have any real meaning?  The practical senses of these words have become warped.  Regardless, I fail to see how these terms are being misused by individuals on this site.  Even the idiotic right thinks in terms of consequences, while the left remains obsessed with fictions like rights.

The point is not whether these definitions are correct or even useful, but the simple fact that by using these terms people make associations which are unavoidable, if this is compounded by a refusal to offer a full explanation (as Conservationist has demonstrated), then people are likely to become frustrated and ignore any further comments.  If someone could direct me to an article which explains exactly what is meant by the term right as it is being used here this would be appreciated.  Simply resorting to a couple of catchy 'isms' is below standard for these forums.

Re: "right" & "left"?
November 04, 2011, 08:24:52 PM
Gentlemen,

A reminder:

Quote
Liberalism originates in the idea of making society a better place for the normal working person, but instead liberalism has become a quest to earn money and become powerful in order to subsidize those who cannot or will not help themselves; it is a thin disguise for revenge against those of higher class, caste, ability and beauty of others. This revengeful nature makes liberal policy a consumptive ideal when introduced to any society, dividing it against itself and leading to a disorganized and devolutionary civilization. It is for this reason that liberals are satired as "limousine liberals," or wealthy people feeling better about themselves by "helping" others, when their real intent has nothing to do with helping those people but relies on using them as a weapon against those who might rise above the herd. Liberalism is egoism, and a deep sickness.

Conservatism fares not much better. Its original concept was that of preserving traditional culture, and allowing the best to rise by keeping them independent of too much entangling government and obligation, but it has been sidetracked into the party for defense of wealth, coupled with a narrow reactionary view that rejects deviation from the type of conformist behavior that adapts people to commerce. As a consequence, it, too, has lost its way and become a form of egoism that allows people to congratulate themselves as "superior" for having had the desire to have wealth as an end in itself. It is bankrupt of actual values, and therefore finds itself obsessed with symbolic issues that relate minimally to the course of civilization. Conservatism is reactionarism, and because it defends something that no longer exists by asserting its nominal aspects and ignoring its ideals, it is both destructive and an obstruction to those who would wish to resurrect those values.

Clearly, another path is needed.

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/politics/