I'm Out... (changed)

[abbey road d enfer]

The "ranters"--yes, I see.  Thank you for sharing that blanket ad hominem. 

Huh? Language barrier? I don't see what's ad hominem in that.

I guess calmly insulting those you don't agree with is preferable anyway.

Are we not supposed to call a spade a spade?

 

[JohnRoberts]

The "ranters"--yes, I see.  Thank you for sharing that blanket ad hominem. 

I guess calmly insulting those you don't agree with is preferable anyway.  The banality of evil and all that.

An interesting distinction, the right thinks that the left is just ignorant, the left thinks that the right is evil... This changes dramatically how we interact with each other.

While no insult is intended from this observation either, I cannot control how you perceive my words.

Life is short.

JR

 

[rob_gould]

An interesting distinction, the right thinks that the left is just ignorant, the left thinks that the right is evil... This changes dramatically how we interact with each other.

While no insult is intended from this observation either, I cannot control how you perceive my words.

Life is short.

JR

I can understand entirely why the left sees the right as 'evil', but I'm not sure about the right seeing the left as ignorant - I've never made that connection.

Ignorant of what specifically?  Can you expand on that a bit?

This is a genuine question - I'm not trying to challenge or question you on it; I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts

 

[hodad]

While no insult is intended from this observation either, I cannot control how you perceive my words.

I generally find the right willfully obtuse, unabashedly hypocritical, and unwilling to compromise or admit fault.  But there are those on the right (Dick Cheney always comes to mind first, but McConnell, Trump and others fit in as well) who will calmly sentence thousands or millions to unnecessary suffering or even death as calmly and blithely as they'd place an order in the McDonald's drive through. 
LBJ, for all his faults, keenly felt the deaths of American soldiers in Vietnam; Nixon, on the other hand, happily sobotaged talks to end the war in order to help himself get elected--no regard at all for the guys fighting & dying.  GW Bush haphazardly got us into a war in Iraq because of oil and Daddy.  Trump has done his best to sabotage his own govt. on COVID and has sent tens of thousands of Americans to an early grave. 
That's the banality of Republican evil.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

An interesting distinction, the right thinks that the left is just ignorant, the left thinks that the right is evil... This changes dramatically how we interact with each other.

While no insult is intended from this observation either, I cannot control how you perceive my words.

.
The only logical conclusion of your words is that they represent your  opinion, feelings, judgement, values etc.
They're not universal truths.   

It *is* revealing though and would certainly go some way towards explaining how we interact with each other.

 

 

[living sounds]

I think a lot of people at the top are on the right are evil as well as ignorant.  It sort of stares you in the face from every news outlet every day now. ;D

The left has been ignorant in that they let themselves be pursuaded to follow the neoliberal playbook and its cult of individual achievement and abandon their core voters.

 

[bluebird]

I don't think any of use are "ignorant" or "evil". There are aspects of each persons "team" that fit into that category, But I think its too single minded to throw those adjectives on any individual here. As brought up before, peoples life experiences shape who they are and the way they choose to survive. Maybe conservatives tend to put the individual before the group based on what they had to do to survive though out their life. Possibly they're support structure wasn't what it should have been, and fear was a dominate motivator. That's way too general an observation but illustrates why people may think the way they do. You can't blame someone for surviving the best they can. I would hope we can all move towards bettering the group, but that takes tremendous will and change, often against the best interest of keeping your individual body alive. It takes a long view, and faith that everyone else is going in the same direction. And I don't blame people for not having that faith, the world is an ugly place and often takes two steps back for every one forward. But we are moving. The social experiment we take part in now, shows the way, but both ideologies have been part of that the whole time. I firmly believe there is a danger of going too far left where the individual is no longer a sovereign entity.  We have to have the checks and balances of all individuals to keep ourselves on track. Unloading your perception of a whole ideology on one person is nothing but destructive. You must coax out the information and reasoning behind the individuals idea. You have to first think of them as a human most interested in their survival first and foremost. That's how we got here. Use the communion to find a better way that suites everyone. That's hard work, the hardest work.  What are we, a bunch a pussies that can't do a bit of social work? That can't muster enough compassion to see beyond the obvious? Maybe...

 

[living sounds]

Well, you never know, but I never had reason to label anyone here as evil.

For me there wouldn't be any point in debating "evil" people (unless I were in a campaign). And I think it's vital we can discuss different views in a friendly and educated manner (which IMO is what still happens here most of the time).

 

[bluebird]

Agreed, BUT, before I was even done writing the last post, the RBG thread exploded... Ha! I give up...

 

[boji]

not sure about the right seeing the left as ignorant

The below information is not to make a case for liberals being 'more ignorant', but to show how a right-leaning person might be led to believe it true:

The work of Jonathan Haidt shows a fairly solid connection between people's politics and their moral 'sensemaking receptors', governed by psychological makeup.
Generally speaking, his findings are that those who lean left tend to use a two-channel basis for morality, whereas right-leaning people tend to use 5 channels equally. 

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives

Edit:  Note how 'Harm' and 'Fairness' metrics are endorsed slightly less in the mind of a right-leaning person, possibly to make up for the additional weight placed on other criteria. This would account for why left-leaning people tend to think right-leaning people are less moral or lack a certain level of comparative 'goodness'.

 

[john12ax7]

Actual liberals are fine.  Actual conservatives are fine.  The issue is identity politics, where team matters above all else,  and principles are kind of  irrelevant.

The real battle is one of reasonable vs unreasonable people.

 

[ruffrecords]

Just curious, are right and left really the right terms to be using to differentiate people's politics.

Seems the me that socialism on the one hand has so far failed to eradicate poverty in the countries where it has been practised and capitalism has failed to provide the betterment opportunities for all where it has been practised. Both ideals are laudable and I see no reason why they should be mutually exclusive.

Where does left and right fit into this??

Cheers

Ian

 

[living sounds]

Just curious, are right and left really the right terms to be using to differentiate people's politics.

Seems the me that socialism on the one hand has so far failed to eradicate poverty in the countries where it has been practised and capitalism has failed to provide the betterment opportunities for all where it has been practised. Both ideals are laudable and I see no reason why they should be mutually exclusive.

Where does left and right fit into this??

Cheers

Ian

There are at least two dimensions (as per the political compass): One is the economic, individualist vs collectivist. The other is the social, libertarian vs. authoritarian.

"Socialism" as practised in Sweden (collectivist elements of taxation and social net coupled with free market economy and liberal democracy) demonstrably works very well.

But "Socialism" of the Soviet style (hyper-collectivist economy coupled with authoritarian regime) certainly didn't, at least long-term.

On the other hand, Capitalism coupled with a highly regulated system with an authoritarian regime a la China seems to be working well economically in recent decades. Though I doubt that it will be sufficiently innovative and sustainable long-term...

 

[ruffrecords]

There are at least two dimensions (as per the political compass): One is the economic, individualist vs collectivist. The other is the social, libertarian vs. authoritarian.

Hmmmm, the use of the word 'dimension' implies the components are orthogonal. I see no evidence that this is the case. Is the model therefore inherently flawed?

Cheers

Ian

 

[iomegaman]

Hmmmm, the use of the word 'dimension' implies the components are orthogonal. I see no evidence that this is the case. Is the model therefore inherently flawed?

Cheers

Ian

Money is inherently flawed. The concept, the drive for and even the need for all create a synthetic culture that runs off of the old evolutionary survival battery pack hard wired into the herd...it becomes a battle for resources, which in turn leads to a battle for power...

The difference between us and the top predators in the animal kingdom is we think we are smarter than the lions pride but fail to see that we also are animals in a pride, competing for a bite off of the carcass...be it the planet or other animals human or not.

The very best of us will rationalize our behavior as we wait in que to fill out pocketbooks with red meat.

 

[boji]

are right and left really the right terms to be using to differentiate people's politics.

Was using the words right/left and conservative/liberal interchangeably since they tend to line up that way.

Gave me pause about how I'm being read though, so thanks.

I'd appreciate reading on the philosophy of anyone known to be a conservative leftist or a right-leaning liberal.  The closest I've found come from writings of authoritarian-minded buddhists who've adopted a strict sense of formalism and hierarchy wrt achieving enlightenment. Since heaps of compassion are likely also included in the practice, it makes for an interesting mix of perspectives.

 

[living sounds]

I'd appreciate reading on the philosophy of anyone known to be a conservative leftist or a right-leaning liberal. 

Catholics maybe (well, all Christians taking the teachings of Jesus seriously, which obviously isn't the case with most): Nn economic issues (the poor) they are very much on the left side of the spectrum, while they very much to regulate what's going on in people's bodys and bedrooms. But no worry, transgressions can be cancelled out via confession. So the rules are certainly there, but they aren't all this serious.  8)

 

[ruffrecords]

Was using the words right/left and conservative/liberal interchangeably since they tend to line up that way.

Gave me pause about how I'm being read though, so thanks.

I'd appreciate reading on the philosophy of anyone known to be a conservative leftist or a right-leaning liberal.  The closest I've found come from writings of authoritarian-minded buddhists who've adopted a strict sense of formalism and hierarchy wrt achieving enlightenment. Since heaps of compassion are likely also included in the practice, it makes for an interesting mix of perspectives.

It is unfortunate that we have to use terms like liberal because in the UK we have a Conservative Party, a Liberal Party and a Labour Party. And I am still completely unclear on the precise meaning of left and right.  These seem to me to be very imprecise terms which only leads to confusion because they mean different things to different people.

In the UK all the parties believe in social betterment and economic growth. They differ on how they set out to achieve these goals and if anything that is perhaps what determines if they are left or right but often the boundary is so blurred it is sometimes hard to distinguish the parties from each other. For example when Tony Blair came to power under the New Labour banner it was nigh on impossible to see anything of the original solidly left labour party of old. If anything it was right of centre.

Cheers

Ian

 

[scott2000]

they are very much on the left side of the spectrum, while they very much to regulate what's going on in people's bodys and bedrooms.

It's more complicated and varied among different groups. Some just don't want to be associated with or forced into paying for things would be one example.
There's this one verse in a song that makes a little sense in respect to the bigger picture for some.... Something to the effect that there's a big deal when bacteria is discovered as life on Mars but a beating heart isn't life on Earth...

Our entire planet was some kind of soup before. At least we were lucky enough to make it to where we are I suppose....

 

[john12ax7]

I'm not familiar with the UK  labeling  / meanings,  or most other countries for that matter.

In the US there is also a distinction when it comes to government vs personal social matters.

Left / Liberal tend to favor big government,  high taxes,, and lots of government services.  But they also favor minimal government intrusion into personal lives, and social matters,  the government shouldn't enforce morality

Right / Conservative are the opposite.  Small government,  low taxes,  minimal government and services.  But they are typically for government intrusion into personal matters,  turning morality into criminal matters.

Both sides are logically inconsistent.  Liberals are ok with big government but not big corporations.  Conservatives are ok with big corporations but not big government.

So you also end up with hybrid types that are a  blend of both.  People who are fiscal conservatives but social liberals,  small government and also minimal intrusion into personal matters, basically a live and let live philosophy.