Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

"right" & "left"?

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 22, 2011, 10:04:02 AM
The right and left are both failures as philosophies because they are both based on liberal humanist/enlightenment values, the left is simply an irrational and extreme extension of this philosophy.  The differences between the two are superficial, neither has any real solutions to the problems facing modern society.  The practical reality of right-wing parties with any significant power is that they are only very marginally better than the left.  Trying to reform the right, especially in America, is misguided, as it would require a complete obliteration of the principles laid out by the founding fathers, 'all men are born equal' and other nonsense, but is it makes you feel better to vote (good) Republican, knowing that once the (evil) Liberals are removed everything will be perfect, be my guest.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 22, 2011, 12:44:14 PM
Trying to reform the right, especially in America, is misguided, as it would require a complete obliteration of the principles laid out by the founding fathers, 'all men are born equal' and other nonsense

I don't agree at all. America has never truly known a right-wing party; it's about time they got one. Furthermore, as we see the failures of the assumptions of the founding fathers and most importantly, how 1968 revisions twisted their vision I think we're seeing the problem reveal itself. Keep in mind that the founding fathers wanted to restrict voting to 30-year-old+ white men who owned land outright (a very tiny group, like an aristocracy).

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 22, 2011, 02:39:01 PM
America: by the left for the left. The closest we've ever gotten to right is left.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 22, 2011, 05:36:27 PM
Trying to reform the right, especially in America, is misguided, as it would require a complete obliteration of the principles laid out by the founding fathers, 'all men are born equal' and other nonsense

I don't agree at all. America has never truly known a right-wing party; it's about time they got one. Furthermore, as we see the failures of the assumptions of the founding fathers and most importantly, how 1968 revisions twisted their vision I think we're seeing the problem reveal itself. Keep in mind that the founding fathers wanted to restrict voting to 30-year-old+ white men who owned land outright (a very tiny group, like an aristocracy).

It seems like you're just trying to re-define the term without bothering to explain to people what you're doing, this is why people are confused.  Obviously you are not referring to the practical reality of modern day right-wing parties, or even the philosophical principles that are generally held to underpin these parties.  It seems that you are defining right as a conservative mindset, and one which attempts to learn from the past in order to decide how to act in the future (expand on/correct this definition please), this I agree with, of course, but it is very far from what people are usually talking about when they say 'right'.  The key point, that is missed by both progressives and conservatives all too often is that BOTH PROGRESS AND CONSERVATION HAVE NO INHERENT VALUE, it depends their content.  The consequence of this is that a conservative philosophy can be wise, but usually they are not because people do not have the intelligence to understand what should be conserved and what should be discarded.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 23, 2011, 04:06:35 AM
I really can't tell if you're trolling or not. Such oversimplification, and it really is, is exactly what the OP disagreed with.

They've convinced you to go looking in the wrong places again.

"Oversimplification" is not a category. Sky is blue, grass is green.

While you're looking at surface attributes, and he's complaining about the flavor of the language used, I'm interested in...

(drum roll)

the actual differences between left and right as philosophies

...well, I think we all learned something today.

America has never truly known a right-wing party;

Stating that the sky is blue and the grass is green is pretty meaningless if we can't agree on what blue, green, sky and grass are. Your definition of 'left' and 'right'  are not those used by just about anybody else. For most Americans, republicans = right = conservatives, democrats = left = liberal. For Europeans, both of those are right while left = socialist. You can call that 'the flavor of language' all you want, but at the very least, maybe you should first explain to people what your flavor of choice is, i.e., your definitions of l left / right or conservative / liberal, because as far as I can tell, saying that left = individualist feelings and right = consequences is tautological with your lexicon.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 23, 2011, 06:47:49 AM
This thread is ultra-fucking-stupid.

What's the origin of the right?

The pre-1789 order.



And what's the origin of the left?

The post-1789 order.


Stop reading newspapers, and start reading more Mencken, Huntington, Nietzsche, Wolfe and other actual thinkers.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 23, 2011, 08:15:27 AM
This thread is ultra-fucking-stupid.

What's the origin of the right?

The pre-1789 order.



And what's the origin of the left?

The post-1789 order.


Stop reading newspapers, and start reading more Mencken, Huntington, Nietzsche, Wolfe and other actual thinkers.

What is the origin of the right?  The humanist values of the enlightenment.  The left is only a continuation of the same line of development.  Otherwise you're just redefining 'right' to mean something which has no connection to the practical reality of what the 'right', in the context of Western democracies, is.  This simply obscures the actual argument and makes it difficult to communicate, although this would not be unusual for people affiliated with this site, think of all the problems caused by trying to redefine nihilism.  Language should communicate ideas as clearly as possible, otherwise we waste each-others time, so just say what you mean instead of making generalizing comments without properly defining your terminology.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 24, 2011, 06:25:43 AM
This thread is ultra-fucking-stupid.

This thread just voices some honest observations, and, my God... even some real science which reflects human inquiry in its clearest and most unbiased form.


What's the origin of the right?

The pre-1789 order.



And what's the origin of the left?

The post-1789 order.


Stop reading newspapers, and start reading more Mencken, Huntington, Nietzsche, Wolfe and other actual thinkers.

Translation:

A=[T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z]. But I will say A=[T and only T], and asserting otherwise morally outrages me.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 24, 2011, 05:40:04 PM
What is the origin of the right?  The humanist values of the enlightenment.

So that's what they teach in schools now.

The right pre-dates the Enlightenment.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 25, 2011, 02:14:21 AM
What is the origin of the right?  The humanist values of the enlightenment.

So that's what they teach in schools now.

The right pre-dates the Enlightenment.


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?

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 25, 2011, 04:31:24 AM
If I'm wrong I stand to be corrected but if we're talking definitions, 'right' is used around here often in the sense inspired by the fringe 'new right' movements in europe, particularly France. They are inspired by paganism, traditionalism, etc. See Nouvelle Driote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite). They are classed as 'far-rght' compared with your run of the mill, economic conservative, christian 'right' parties. It's never made clear, so i've found over the years it causes confusion with what anyone coming here who already has an education probably thinks of as 'right'. The action of trying to take over definitions of terms generally is beyond me.

This is a pretty good overview of the new right and i've had the opportunity to hear the author speak

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Democracy-Equality-European-Right/dp/0939482630

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 29, 2011, 01:55:45 AM
What is the origin of the right?  The humanist values of the enlightenment.

So that's what they teach in schools now.

The right pre-dates the Enlightenment.


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?

Exactly.

It's as if they're not even trying to get their message across lately.

===

More and more, this place reeks of fear and desperation. Less and less, this place speaks the truth and instead yells "The left is incorrect, the right is correct!"

I mean, seriously, what is going on here lately? I am all for dismantling lies (multiculturalism, pluralism, democracy, relativism, equality, dualism). But lately this place seems to be just propagating five lies for every one lie it dismantles.

Most of the amerika.org and anus.com blog posts lately read something like this:

Lies lies lies lies lies... oh interesting a truthful thought oh damn it went no where... more lies lies lies lies lies... oh interesting a mentioning of a truthful thinker oh damn here we go again... more lies lies lies lies lies.

Like an angry aspie who does not want to actually communicate as to maybe help others, but who only wants to merely talk to others as to impress himself, all this "leftism kills civilizations" talk lately is just untrue, egotistical, and ineffective.

At first I thought it was just to appeal to a broader (and therefore larger) audience, and dismissed it, but now I can't help but realize that something else must be going on here. I mean, it's just become incoherent nonsense.

===

"Keep in mind that the founding fathers wanted to restrict voting to 30-year-old+ white men who owned land outright (a very tiny group, like an aristocracy)."

Unless I am mistaken, I think you mean oligarchy. Oligarchy means "rule of the few". Aristocracy means "rule of the excellent" or "rule of the best".

To my mind, the most excellent or best are those who continually seek, find, and live by the truth (both the weak / provisional / empirical / observational / scientific kind and the strong / eternal / absolute / philosophical / spiritual kind).

If that is so, then restricting voting to an oligarchy 30-year-old+ white men who own land outright would be a token, if not dangerous, change.

We would still have a plutocracy "rule of the wealthy" which merely traded its current robes of liberal values and globalized rule for new robes of conservative values and localized rule. A joke, if you ask me.

===

"We drastically need less free-thinkers on this forum and more people with a capacity for mindless obedience. Itís the best way to proselytize. The thing about free-thinkers is that they argue and squabble but rarely get things done. We require proselytizers working for us to spread the information provided on this website and to bring our ideals down to earth from their present state as air castles between the clouds."

Trading mindful obedience to truth for mindless obedience to ideology? Trading placing primacy on my mind (that which grants me the only true freedom in this universe, that which allows me to discern between reality and illusion, between right and wrong, between important and unimportant) for placing primacy on some agenda? ... Seriously bro?

For some time, when I was not working 48 hours a week to help my Swedish-Polish-German unworthy prole family pay bills, going to school so I could someday earn a decent salary, and developing myself and growing into manhood, I was spending about 12 hours a week promoting the shit out of this website, because I thought it spoke the truth that I intuitively understood but could not intellectually articulate and clearly communicate.

But that was then. And this is now. And, alas, like all real men, I am allied only to the truth, and the more this place abandons truth, the more it will find itself abandoned by all real men.

===

"I think those of us who have awakened to see how disgusting, pointless and moribund by design that modern society is should adopt a culture of critique, and use the ensuing arrogance to guarantee our own success at the expense of the rest. If nothing else, this puts us in positions of power and success from which we can wield greater influence."

This is false elitism fit for butt hurt, left-wing manipulators and bitter, right-wing exploiters, not the true elitism fit for strong bodies, hearts, and minds of which this site... used to... speak of.

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 has now effectively stuffed its head up its own anus, and now yells muffled words only to itself.

Sad, really.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 29, 2011, 10:23:32 PM
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?


Re: "right" & "left"?
October 30, 2011, 04:42:17 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?

We seem to be talking past eachother, however after your post I believe we can at least put semantic issues to rest.  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.

Now when you say right, you seem to mean conservatism, and when you say conservatism you seem to mean the conservation of genuinely traditional (realistic) values.  This is very far from what the term right usually means and the fact that you will not articulate this makes it very difficult to have a constructive discussion.  It should be obvious that conservation and progression have no value except through their content, for modern conservatives and progressives it is not 'conservatism' or 'progressivism' that is the problem but what they wish to conserve and progress towards respectively.  It is better then to speak of tangible values than vague tendencies without bothering to define them.  If you had simply said that pre-modern traditional values were superior to the modern political platforms, I doubt that anyone would have disagreed with you, instead this thread reads like this...

Poster 1:  The left is obviously a failure but I don't really see how the right (right wing parties in modern Western democracies) is much better.

Poster 2:  The right (pre-modern traditional values) is better and you're an idiot leftist for saying otherwise.

The ensuing verbal tirades and strawman arguments are annoying and a waste of our time.  This forum should be here for communicating ideas, which requires clear explanation, otherwise its just another place for people on an ego trip to cry out in the face of their own nothingness.