EPTIt's just more useful to use a leftist messenger so that you aren't stonewalled at the door.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1721
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
It's just more useful to use a leftist messenger so that you aren't stonewalled at the door. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
But in regards to American conservatism, Bretibart, Drudge Report, and Mises Institute would probably be what you may be looking for. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 12 2015 12:10 Shiragaku wrote: My English teacher once recommend that I learn deconstruction and binary opposition just for American politics. In regards to American politics, if someone uses the left-right spectrum as a way to identify positions using just two parties in a two party system, then yes, I guess words like "far-left" and "liberal" has meaning in the same sentence. http://i.imgur.com/oPRlda6.png + Show Spoiler + I have always been disturbed by the use of "leftist" being referred to Democrats and New Labour largely because of their destruction of the welfare state, support for NAFTA, and taking capitalism so far to the point that reading Adam Smith makes people wonder if he was really the father of capitalism. These actions can be argued to be "liberal" but not "left-wing." Perhaps the most clear and concise definition of liberalism can be found in this video. Perhaps we have forgotten what liberal politics really is when radicals on the left and the right dissipated for quite some time. If you want the screech to stop, just turn town the YouTube volume and increase the volume on your speakers/headphones Where is that political spectrum from? I find it particular comical how the "center" is a little bit over 2/3 to the right of the chart. Where is neoliberal social democracy ever considered as decidedly left of the center, when it is considered right of center in all of europe, where those ideas of left and right originate..... but the most hilarious idea in that chart is that "anarcho capitalism" is closer to the center, than the gradualism approach to "social democracy" | ||
|
Ryuhou)aS(
United States1174 Posts
Communism (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism Anarchism a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchism?s=t | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 12 2015 16:20 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Hmmm interesting that Anarchism is listed right underneath Communism. Aren't they like opposites? Communism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism Anarchism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchism?s=t Where different anarchism approaches get sorted in the political spectrum highly depends on what is "expected" to happen. When it tends to communalism, sharing and fraternité it gets sorted to the left, and when it tends to everyone for himself, the able thrive, the weak perish, it gets on the right. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On March 12 2015 14:32 ticklishmusic wrote: Wait if everything posted so far is left or some degree thereof, can we get some examples of what counts as right of center, right and far right? I'd say that Fox is probably right, Washington Times is right (but shitty journalism), the Blaze is pretty far right (and again shitty journalism). Funny thing, the other day I found a column ragging on the Iran negotiations that cited the Borowitz report (which is a humor column in the New Yorker) as a real news source. For your reading pleasure: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/iran-offers-to-help-obama-and-gop-ignore-americas-best-interests-how-nice-of-them/ http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/iran-offers-to-mediate-talks-between-republicans-and-obama?intcid=mod-most-popular I don't want to categorize it across the spectrum, but you could do Fox, WSJ, National Review, Townhall, and Weekly Standard as a short list. WSJ is paywalled so it isn't necessarily great for our purposes here. But the complaining about left-wing sources is kind of disingenuous because everyone here is allowed to post from whatever source they want. Sure, I don't like that a lot of the discussions here start from HuffPo or TPM articles because they're usually pretty biased and flawed, but that doesn't preclude anyone from including germane information they might find on those "right-wing" sources or even more neutral and professionally written pieces in the NYT or WaPo, where you find a lot of leaks and such. Also, that political spectrum is rubbish. Nazism is national socialism, a leftist doctrine mixed with nationalism. I think the Bolsheviks would be very surprised to find themselves characterized as far-right and founded in 1990. The North Koreans would also be shocked to find their juche doctrine described as far right. Left wing describes a cooperative or collective doctrine that wants a strong government to define and enforce social equality, which usually includes toppling competing establishment institutions like religion, corporations, and cultural barriers (because they are blamed as the sources and perpetrators of division, inequality, and oppression). Right wing describes individualist doctrines that want a limited government to prevent gross injustices but otherwise and in general allow people to make their own decisions and live with their own consequences. Nationalism, belligerence, and willingness to use violence are separate dimensions to this. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On March 12 2015 18:43 coverpunch wrote: I don't want to categorize it across the spectrum, but you could do Fox, WSJ, National Review, Townhall, and Weekly Standard as a short list. WSJ is paywalled so it isn't necessarily great for our purposes here. But the complaining about left-wing sources is kind of disingenuous because everyone here is allowed to post from whatever source they want. Sure, I don't like that a lot of the discussions here start from HuffPo or TPM articles because they're usually pretty biased and flawed, but that doesn't preclude anyone from including germane information they might find on those "right-wing" sources or even more neutral and professionally written pieces in the NYT or WaPo, where you find a lot of leaks and such. Also, that political spectrum is rubbish. Nazism is national socialism, a leftist doctrine mixed with nationalism. I think the Bolsheviks would be very surprised to find themselves characterized as far-right and founded in 1990. The North Koreans would also be shocked to find their juche doctrine described as far right. Left wing describes a cooperative or collective doctrine that wants a strong government to define and enforce social equality, which usually includes toppling competing establishment institutions like religion, corporations, and cultural barriers (because they are blamed as the sources and perpetrators of division, inequality, and oppression). Right wing describes individualist doctrines that want a limited government to prevent gross injustices but otherwise and in general allow people to make their own decisions and live with their own consequences. Nationalism, belligerence, and willingness to use violence are separate dimensions to this. National socialism is hardly leftist even according to your definitions. While it is a "cooperative or collective doctrine that wants a strong government", it certainly did not "want to define and enforce social equality". Hitler wanted a stratified society and certainly did not want to abolish private property, as both class and property were seen as tools to further the Reich. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On March 12 2015 18:43 coverpunch wrote: I don't want to categorize it across the spectrum, but you could do Fox, WSJ, National Review, Townhall, and Weekly Standard as a short list. WSJ is paywalled so it isn't necessarily great for our purposes here. But the complaining about left-wing sources is kind of disingenuous because everyone here is allowed to post from whatever source they want. Sure, I don't like that a lot of the discussions here start from HuffPo or TPM articles because they're usually pretty biased and flawed, but that doesn't preclude anyone from including germane information they might find on those "right-wing" sources or even more neutral and professionally written pieces in the NYT or WaPo, where you find a lot of leaks and such. Also, that political spectrum is rubbish. Nazism is national socialism, a leftist doctrine mixed with nationalism. I think the Bolsheviks would be very surprised to find themselves characterized as far-right and founded in 1990. The North Koreans would also be shocked to find their juche doctrine described as far right. Left wing describes a cooperative or collective doctrine that wants a strong government to define and enforce social equality, which usually includes toppling competing establishment institutions like religion, corporations, and cultural barriers (because they are blamed as the sources and perpetrators of division, inequality, and oppression). Right wing describes individualist doctrines that want a limited government to prevent gross injustices but otherwise and in general allow people to make their own decisions and live with their own consequences. Nationalism, belligerence, and willingness to use violence are separate dimensions to this. Well of course you can post whatever you want, but if you want to have a meaningful discussion it has to start from places likes the NYT. This isn't for any logical reason, it's just the truth in this thread (and elsewhere). Why post something when its place of origin is more talked about than what it says? It's not a worthwhile endeavor. So sure, the only reason this thread is filled with more lefty links is because (a few) liberals post more of said links than conservatives- but that's not an accident. There is a reason my most cited source is the Washington Post. Also, liberals simply post more links. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On March 12 2015 19:12 Maenander wrote: National socialism is hardly leftist even according to your definitions. While it is a "cooperative or collective doctrine that wants a strong government", it certainly did not "want to define and enforce social equality". Hitler wanted a stratified society and certainly did not want to abolish private property, as both class and property were seen as tools to further the Reich. I purposely made the definition as broad as possible, so the Nazis did define and enforce their own brand of social equality. It wasn't a definition that anyone else would agree with, since it held Aryan Germans as a master race. I don't think Nazism was a far left doctrine but it was certainly more leftist than the other Western countries in the sense of collectivism, using nationalism and identity politics in a very influential way, and I believe it would be more leftist than most OECD countries today. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On March 12 2015 19:21 Introvert wrote: Well of course you can post whatever you want, but if you want to have a meaningful discussion it has to start from places likes the NYT. This isn't for any logical reason, it's just the truth in this thread (and elsewhere). Why post something when its place of origin is more talked about than what it says? It's not a worthwhile endeavor. So sure, the only reason this thread is filled with more lefty links is because (a few) liberals post more of said links than conservatives- but that's not an accident. There is a reason my most cited source is the Washington Post. Also, liberals simply post more links. If the article has the basic facts and is well written, then post it. I have no idea if the arguments against the articles you posted had any validity and I don't really care, but you probably should. If they weren't well written or had factual errors that were corrected or retracted later, then maybe you just picked bad articles that deserved to be called out. Just keep trying. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On March 12 2015 19:39 coverpunch wrote: If the article has the basic facts and is well written, then post it. I have no idea if the arguments against the articles you posted had any validity and I don't really care, but you probably should. If they weren't well written or had factual errors that were corrected or retracted later, then maybe you just picked bad articles that deserved to be called out. Just keep trying. I think you came in late, so maybe you are missing some context. I didn't post any article in particular. Calling out bad data is fine (in fact, it's a good thing). I double check important info from several sources when I post an article, if I feel the need is there. But this most commonly occurs after the discussion is already well under way. In an ideal world, we'd give two figs about the exact source and we'd try to prove or disprove what is written with other analysis. This isn't what happens. You can't get out of the gate if your source isn't approved. So it's purely a practical matter that posting from mainstream/left-leaning sources is better- you get the point much sooner with others in the thread. Those of us on the right do spend a decent amount of time addressing the straight up propaganda posted here daily, but there is so much that one can't catch it all. And it gets boring after a while. To sum up, basically you take less crap in the long run if some bit of news comes from a center or left-leaning source. Contrast- If there is any pressure on Stealth to put the brakes on, it doesn't seem to be having any effect. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28561 Posts
On March 12 2015 16:20 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Hmmm interesting that Anarchism is listed right underneath Communism. Aren't they like opposites? Communism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism Anarchism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchism?s=t Firstly, this particular left-right spectrum seems to be most concerned with equality (ideologically) rather than the degree the state controls the economy. I can see how you'd argue either point, but from my point of view, it makes sense, and historically, it most certainly does. Looking at Europe 100-70 years ago, so during the birthplace of these ideologies, fascists and nazis found their supporters and allies in the conservative (wealthier) segments of society - often because these groups were afraid of the spread of communism. This because communism seeks to erode hierarchical structures that these groups were benefactors of (and to be fair, in almost every historical case, communism has not eradicated hierarchical structures, they've just changed them to be part of party lines). While coverpunch above me claims that the "national socialism" name of nazism puts it in the leftist camp (sorry, too simplified, didn't mean to make your opinion seem to be founded around just the name), the fact is, ideologically, nazism is essentially an offshoot of fascism with a racial component. Fascism puts extreme weight on hierarchy, strong should rule the weak, not everyone is equal. Nazism agrees with this, and adds that nordic-white is stronger than slavic-white is stronger than jews blacks etc. Considering how fascists were mostly opposed by leftists, be it socialists, communists or anarchists, and found more support among the "bourgeois", to the point were these factions were fighting wars over ideology, it does not make sense imo to have a left-right spectrum where fascism and communism ends up on the same side- even if there's quite a bit of ideological consensus on the right of the state to appropriate property. Following this, classic anarchism, anarcho-socialism or anarcho-syndicalism, which I'd argue are the only forms of anarchy we've witnessed historically (Spain) is certainly a leftist movement. It was concerned with the abolishment of hierarchical structures and that there should be no leader figures. Anarcho-capitalism is also a thing however, and it's more of an extreme version of the already extreme ayn-randy liberterianism. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't concern itself with creating a more equitable society free of hierarchical structures, it concerns itself with getting rid of the state because they see the state as hindering the gifted who would otherwise rise to the top and shape our world. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Right in front of the police station. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
Basically only people that think they can be a successful warlord, and get denied by the existence of a government, should ever be in that camp. And those are somewhat hypocritical too, as if they really have the skills to be such a warlord, there are plenty of opportunities abroad already. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On March 12 2015 20:11 RCMDVA wrote: Overnight Ferguson, MO heated up. https://twitter.com/stlcountypd/status/575906278288941056 Right in front of the police station. Fox news already went racist as hell with it on air this morning. Talking about "why were they even out there protesting?", "don't they have work today!?" 6 whole people already resigned The chief left with only a ~$96,000 parting gift after blatantly lying about why he released the tape of Brown in the convenience store. "Shouldn't they have been happy!?" They got the report they wanted from the justice department... "What more do they want!?!?" To which their guest happily chimed in "Dead cops, They want dead cops"... But that was only after trying to make it seem like racism/prejudice had nothing to do with what was going on in Ferguson. There's plenty more, but that's the basics. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
always_winter
United States195 Posts
I think a lot of its semantics but generally speaking the more progressive tone is to simply drop the classifications altogether, as they themselves are dangerous and frankly unneeded. I think to view the world through a single lens is foolish, and I think most would agree, however I think many are, let's say, blissfully unaware of the way certain social constructs and social influence which have guided them and directed their political ideologies. You could get really existential with this but causes aside I think the best solution is really just to immerse yourself in a wide spectrum of sources, throw out the garbage at each end and find some common ground in the middle where you can construct your own platform and really begin to understand the facts as they are. On hot-button issues I like to watch Fox vs MSNBC, conservative blogs vs liberal, just to see how to opposing viewpoints are developing because it's always nice to know your opponent's argument as well as they do, and understanding their basis of argument will give you a better understanding of where they're coming from, hopefully directing one away from ad-hominem and more toward pretty basic civil discussion. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On March 12 2015 20:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: Firstly, this particular left-right spectrum seems to be most concerned with equality (ideologically) rather than the degree the state controls the economy. I can see how you'd argue either point, but from my point of view, it makes sense, and historically, it most certainly does. Looking at Europe 100-70 years ago, so during the birthplace of these ideologies, fascists and nazis found their supporters and allies in the conservative (wealthier) segments of society - often because these groups were afraid of the spread of communism. This because communism seeks to erode hierarchical structures that these groups were benefactors of (and to be fair, in almost every historical case, communism has not eradicated hierarchical structures, they've just changed them to be part of party lines). While coverpunch above me claims that the "national socialism" name of nazism puts it in the leftist camp (sorry, too simplified, didn't mean to make your opinion seem to be founded around just the name), the fact is, ideologically, nazism is essentially an offshoot of fascism with a racial component. Fascism puts extreme weight on hierarchy, strong should rule the weak, not everyone is equal. Nazism agrees with this, and adds that nordic-white is stronger than slavic-white is stronger than jews blacks etc. Considering how fascists were mostly opposed by leftists, be it socialists, communists or anarchists, and found more support among the "bourgeois", to the point were these factions were fighting wars over ideology, it does not make sense imo to have a left-right spectrum where fascism and communism ends up on the same side- even if there's quite a bit of ideological consensus on the right of the state to appropriate property. Following this, classic anarchism, anarcho-socialism or anarcho-syndicalism, which I'd argue are the only forms of anarchy we've witnessed historically (Spain) is certainly a leftist movement. It was concerned with the abolishment of hierarchical structures and that there should be no leader figures. Anarcho-capitalism is also a thing however, and it's more of an extreme version of the already extreme ayn-randy liberterianism. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't concern itself with creating a more equitable society free of hierarchical structures, it concerns itself with getting rid of the state because they see the state as hindering the gifted who would otherwise rise to the top and shape our world. I think this is a misrepresentation of the positions. Fascism's defining feature wasn't its ideology of inequality (strong vs weak) but its emphasis on nationalism and the expansionism that resulted. They weren't opposed to or by leftists on any ideological grounds but on plain old competition - they were fighting to control the same groups of people, particularly in Eastern Europe. It's laughable to argue Soviet or Chinese expansionism was based in any real concern for equality and I don't see you making such an argument with real examples but rather just theoretically. So I think using equality alone to separate left from right is a vast oversimplification. In the US, there is basically unanimity that everyone deserves equality of opportunity and equality in the eyes of the law. Where the two sides differ is primarily in the details of what that looks like and whether some policies will change the results to look more fair. I just don't think you can get any meaningful substance to such a debate unless we talk about state power and in particular the power the state has to define social equality and enact policies to fit the definition. The US is a center-right country precisely because the federal government has relatively little power to make such definitions and enact strong policies. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, Drone  As to your general point, coverpunch, I think you too easily overlook the convenient yet most appropriate conclusion; both pragmatism and ideology played a role in how the communist/fascist divide made itself known during the 20th century. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
| ||
