Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Found this one over on Facebook:
Reactions break down into: 1) Teacher had it right, this is inaccurate; 2) this is completely accurate; 3) neither one is accurate.
Think I’m in #3, at least as far as the “right” goes. No qualms about the left three-quarters of the bottom one, or any of the top one. The quibble is with anarchy being freedom.
This connects back to the “Outhouse Test,” which is all about persistence or lack of persistence in the face of a task so unpleasant or intimidating that one loses sight of the limit of his ability. In the example of fishing car keys out of an outhouse, we can all certainly feel the temptation of saying “this is beyond my ability and I shall have to rely on someone else to do it” even though, if we were on a deserted island living by ourselves and somehow confronted with the same task, we’d find a way to get it done. The Outhouse Test is, therefore, all about our fellowship in a community being abused. We begin to conflate the unwillingness to do a task that needs doing, with a much more laudable confession that the job exceeds our capacity — even when we may know darn good and well that the job doesn’t.
The test is: After you find you “can’t” do something, if someone else can, are you genuinely impressed. I think a lot of people who “can’t” do things, if they’re honest about it, would ‘fess up that they aren’t impressed and don’t have any ambition to learn how to get it done. Gratitude would be the best they could rustle up. Solving the computer problem is something they think is beneath them, just like the extraction of the car keys from the outhouse. Dodged that bullet. No, thank you, I do not want to learn how…I do not ever want to learn how.
But if there wasn’t anybody else around, they’d do it.
Someone somewhere said something, and I found it thought-provoking, that — totalitarianism versus freedom is a circular band, that if followed to its endpoints will be found to connect and close a loop. The argument goes like, what is the epitome of authoritarian control; that would be prison. And where can you go to get ALL of your freedom, that would be out in the wilderness living like Grizzly Adams. Are those two situations so different? In the prison, you are confined to a cell and you get three square meals a day. So those don’t translate to living in the wilderness. But as far as control is concerned, the situations are identical — you have little to none.
There is the matter of the development of the mind. The Outhouse Test, for example. The guy living in the wilderness would never be tempted by it, would he; the job’s worth doing or else it isn’t. No use feigning weakness so someone else might come in and do it. The guy in jail, on the other hand, would have it done for him. Or, he’d be the guy doing it, whether he likes it or not. This would make a difference in how people would think about things, and within a short matter of time that would make a difference in how their minds strengthen.
There is a paradox emerging here about freedom. The kind of freedom people on the political right champion, includes the freedom to choose not to be free. Once again, we see ObamaCare is the perfect example. I saw President Obama and His political allies urging people to log on to the website that didn’t work, and sign up. And I saw lots of advocates and pundits and politicians on the “right,” making much of the website’s problems and the potential for compromise of private health information. But I never did see people on the right saying “don’t sign up” or “we have to stop people from signing up.”
Conservatives aren’t like liberals. A real conservative allows for other people not to be conservative. Just don’t force your kids into these unwise lifestyle choices, absorb the consequences of your own bad decisions, and pay for your mistakes as well as all the other expenses involved in your existence. So no, conservatism is not anarchy. Conservatism, rather, champions the freedom of the anarchist to be an anarchist, so long as the anarchist is at peace with the consequences of being one, and doesn’t make those somebody else’s problem. Conservatives are no less enthused about championing the same freedom for centrists, and for liberals.
And themselves too. You shouldn’t have to pay a special price just for being a conservative. You shouldn’t be getting audit notices from the I.R.S. just because you’re a conservative.
In the conservative’s perfect world, everybody is not necessarily conservative. But everyone — that is, everyone who matures to the extent required — feels an incentive to eventually become one if they aren’t one already. People can be liberals if they like, so long as they’re willing to accept that their options are, and of right ought to be, limited. They don’t advocate for unnatural consequences; they object to entirely doing away with the natural ones. And the natural consequence of spreading the wealth around is that, if nobody else can be extraordinarily wealthy, then you can’t either. The zero-sum game delusion becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, since nobody is allowed to enjoy the profits from bringing more wealth in to the collective, so no new wealth enters. The collective ends up impoverished, some are surprised by this, others are wondering why anyone’s surprised. It’s all about owning consequences.
A dogmatic liberal will refuse to own consequences, even the costs of bringing their own fantasies into reality. “Raise taxes on the rich” is the standard pat-answer whenever the funding question comes up. A liberal is a fellow who’s so nice he’ll give you the shirt right off another guy’s back, as the saying goes.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The “fascist = far right” thing never ceases to drive me nuts. For most people this is just a swillogism. But even historians of the period, who should damn well know better, routinely refer to the fascists as “right wing” because they’re also nationalists. As opposed to internationalists, like the Third International, the Industrial Workers of the World, etc., who insisted on being called “left wing.”
That commies can’t also be nationalists would come as a shock to Joe “socialism in one country” Stalin, of course, as well as Mao “communism with Chinese characteristics” Zedong, not to mention Kim Il-Sung, Enver Hoxha, Nicloae Ceausescu, Kwame “Pan-Africanism” Nkrumah, and Ho Chi Minh (the CIA spent twenty years trying to figure out if he was a nationalist or a communist first), as well as all the various leaders of all the pissant Soviet-backed “national liberation” movements across the Third World for the better part of seventy years….
But whatever. Those are just facts, and facts can’t penetrate a circuit.
- Severian | 03/03/2014 @ 06:35The “Reality” chart is highly flawed. For instance, someone who wants to impose their fundamentalist religious beliefs on society are considered on the political right, but they show up on the left of the chart.
Rather, the political left refers to those who want greater social equality, while those on the political right want to preserve existing hierarchical traditions or return to traditional hierarchical traditions.
The left-right spectrum is orthogonal to the statist-libertarian spectrum. So we can have someone on the left who wants little or no government (communes), someone on the right who wants more government (fundamentalists).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png
Severian: But even historians of the period, who should damn well know better, routinely refer to the fascists as “right wing”
People, then and now, generally place fascism on the political right. As words are defined by usage, it’s your understanding of the term that must be in error.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 07:41So people who seek to impose their beliefs on society are never on the political left, and people who are on the political left never seek to impose their beliefs on society?
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2014 @ 07:54it’s your understanding of the term that must be in error.
Nope, it’s y’all’s reading comprehension that’s at fault. Again. Work on that.
- Severian | 03/03/2014 @ 08:06All depends on who’s defining “Conservative”(to what?) and “Liberal” (in defense to what) that week.
- CaptDMO | 03/03/2014 @ 08:11Clearly the usurpation, and wolf in sheep’s clothing, of “popular” terms has shown it’s ugly head throughout history?
England’s “usage” of left/right should suffice as “Well, what does that mean?” example relative to the popular “usage” in the US, much like the selective distinctions made between (ie)”Gay”, and homosexual, or “fair share”, and “entitlement”, when convenient for the argument.
The Outhouse Test could probably do with an update.
“COULD recover the smart phone themselves, or just leave it and have daddy buy them a new one TODAY”
mkfreeberg: So people who seek to impose their beliefs on society are never on the political left, and people who are on the political left never seek to impose their beliefs on society?
Not at all. There are statists on the left and libertarians on the left. There are statists on the right and libertarians on the right. Look at the chart again.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png
Severian: Nope, it’s y’all’s reading comprehension that’s at fault.
We read your post. You think historians are wrong. And while that is certainly possible with regards to many things, the meanings of words are determined by usage.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 08:24Bzzzt! Wrong again. Keep trying. I know it’s hard, but you’ll be better for it.
- Severian | 03/03/2014 @ 08:53mkfreeberg: But I never did see people on the right saying “don’t sign up” or “we have to stop people from signing up.”
Generally, you have to open your eyes to see.
Opt-out Obamacare
http://www.google.com/search?q=opt-out+obamacare
Creepy Uncle Sam
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 10:22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7cRsfW0Jv8
Not exactly sure how to quote someone, but in reference (or rather, commiseration) to Severian’s first comment: I repeatedly run into that brick wall myself. Living in Eugene, OR (and previously Portland) with large liberal populations forces this analogy to come up constantly. For the locals, there is always grey in morals, but never grey in politics. Fascism is purely a right-wing application, it is impossible (in the liberal mind) to attach the concept to leftist policy, even when you pull dictionary-definition examples of “Do as I say, not as I do or I’ll imprison you”. The least they will admit to is “Communism”, which they then immediately equate to Socialism, which they immediately equate to some positive and beneficial aspect of “Change by Diktat” (only disregarding any penalty or enforcement).
- P_Ang | 03/03/2014 @ 10:52Opt-out Obamacare
Offering an alternative to something ≠ forcing people not to take it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2014 @ 18:57mkfreeberg: Fascism is purely a right-wing application, it is impossible (in the liberal mind) to attach the concept to leftist policy
Fascists certainly did adopt some socialist policies, but political scientists nearly all place fascism on the right as they advocate extreme forms of inequality, including national and racial inequality.
mkfreeberg: Offering an alternative to something ≠ forcing people not to take it.
Your claim was you “never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up'”.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 19:06Did you have some evidence to offer by way of rebuttal?
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2014 @ 19:49political scientists nearly all place fascism on the right as they advocate extreme forms of inequality, including national and racial inequality.
This is hilarious. Because, as we all know, “conservatives advocate for greater inequality.” Despite the fact that, you know, no conservative anyone has ever heard of has ever said anything close to this. But the Zachriel wrote it on their blog back in 2005, so that’s what “conservatives” do. QED.
Oh, wait… did I say “hilarious”? I meant “retarded.”
- Severian | 03/03/2014 @ 20:38Not that it matters — these retards are impervious to facts — but for anyone lurking on this thread: For the record, commies “advocate extreme forms of inequality, including national and racial inequality” all the time.
Josef Stalin, you’ll recall, considered Hitler an ally in the war against international finance capital… until Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and invaded, at which point Stalin inaugerated the “Great Patriotic War for the Motherland.”
Kim Il-Sung, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu, etc. are also extreme “left nationalists,” as is Aleksander Dugin, the architect of the “National Bolshevism” — note well, Cuttlefish, National Bolshevism — currently animating Vladmir Putin’s adventures in the Crimea.
Kwame Nkrumah was as Marxist as they come, and he’s the originator of “Pan Africanism.” The Naxalites in India are nativists. Mao has lots to say about “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”
And so forth. Here again, we can throw out specious appeals to authority… or we can actually know what we’re talking about.
- Severian | 03/03/2014 @ 21:01The quotes in our previous comment should have been attributed to P_Ang.
mkfreeberg: Did you have some evidence to offer by way of rebuttal?
Rebuttal of which point?
Severian: Because, as we all know, “conservatives advocate for greater inequality.”
They advocate for the preservation of existing hierarchical traditions and institutions.
Severian: Despite the fact that, you know, no conservative anyone has ever heard of has ever said anything close to this.
Sure they do. Religious conservatives emphasize the man’s dominant role in marriage, for instance. In economics, conservatives often equate financial success with meritocracy. Traditionally, conservatives resisted democratization. So those opposed to women’s suffrage or ending segregation were considered the conservatives of their day.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 06:18Rebuttal of which point?
That thing y’all were saying, right up above the question I was asking…
Z: Your claim was you “never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’”.
Go check y’all’s Google hits. You see “people on the right” giving advice on opting out. Showing people how. Helping the people who are being hurt by ObamaCare. Giving the information to whoever might need it or want it.
Because that is different from advocacy, what y’all have done is prove my point. Liberals want a world in which everybody agrees with them (which, by the way, they wouldn’t be able to handle, since in order to do their moral preening they require contrast, some way to make themselves appear better than everyone else). Conservatives, on the other hand, want a world in which everybody is free to be as liberal or conservative or libertarian or anarchist as they want to be.
Now it is true that if you round up a bunch of conservatives and start giving them a poll about how people would end up, most conservatives would say, after learning all of life’s lessons, the people in that wishful world would end up conservative. That stands to reason; if they didn’t think conservatism is best, they wouldn’t be conservatives. But that’s different from forcing it on people.
Like the liberals have been doing with ObamaCare.
We have to pass it so we can, uh, find out what’s in it…
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 06:26mkfreeberg: That thing y’all were saying, right up above the question I was asking…
Your claim was you “never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’”.
Lots of people on the right are saying ‘don’t sign up’.
Opt-out Obamacare
http://www.google.com/search?q=opt-out+obamacare
mkfreeberg: You see “people on the right” giving advice on opting out.
Yes, they’re saying ‘don’t sign up’, which directly contradicts your claim above.
mkfreeberg: Because that is different from advocacy
Of course it’s advocacy. Gee whiz. Creepy Uncle Sam. “Friends don’t let friends sign up for a bad deal.” “A few of the groups urging people not to sign up for health insurance under Obamacare include Generation Opportunity, FreedomWorks, and the Citizens Council for Health Freedom.” “Burn your ObamaCare card.”
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 06:37And your examples prove my point.
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 06:56mkfreeberg: And your examples prove my point.
You said you “never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’”. We pointed to many instances of people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’. That does show that you may look but you do not see.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 07:01You said you “never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’”. We pointed to many instances of people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’. That does show that you may look but you do not see.
I see. And that is your example of successfully refuting an argument? Y’all are going on record saying that’s the model in y’all’s books?
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 18:23mkfreeberg: And that is your example of successfully refuting an argument?
The link provides multiple examples of those on the political right urging people, especially young people, to not ‘sign up’ directly contrary to your assertion.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 18:26Look, if we’re going to get that technical about it, then y’all have to find text that equals the string expression. “Don’t sign up.”
On the other hand, if we’re going to be reasonable about it, then y’all are going to have to — ya know — not miss the whole point. Liberals coerce, bribe, blackmail, bludgeon, threaten, and most of all, set up these networks of dependency so that people can’t afford to say no to them.
The conservatives, on the other hand, offer resources to those who’d like to say no to ObamaCare and don’t know how to. Go check y’all’s search results.
That’s why I say they prove my point. So if y’all want to repeat that exercise a few more times…well, feel free.
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 18:29mkfreeberg: Look, if we’re going to get that technical about it, then y’all have to find text that equals the string expression. “Don’t sign up.”
The phrase of the day is “Opt-out”, which you will find used in the imperative at the end of Creepy Uncle Sam. You will also find an entire website dedicated to “Opt-out Now“.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 18:35“Opt out” ≠ “don’t sign up.” So we’ve dealt with that.
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 19:02Gee whiz. That’s just silly. Of course they mean the same thing. They even use both terms on the opt out web site.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 19:05Gee whiz. That’s just silly. Of course they mean the same thing.
Hey, if y’all can miss obvious things then so can I. It’s only fair, right?
The thing y’all are deliberately misunderstanding is…pressuring people to do what you want (liberals and democrats), versus offering them a way not to do, what you don’t want them to do (conservatives and Republicans).
“Friends don’t let friends” is a phrase that has been used for a couple decades or so now, to describe things that are just-plain-bad-ideas. It doesn’t really have anything to do with stopping anybody from doing anything. So, my point stands. But y’all knew that already.
If y’all can get sticky and uber-technical about things, then others can too. That’s how it works.
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 19:12mkfreeberg: The thing y’all are deliberately misunderstanding is…pressuring people to do what you want (liberals and democrats), versus offering them a way not to do, what you don’t want them to do (conservatives and Republicans).
That’s not what you said above, but okay.
Over the last century, social conservatives have supported laws against sodomy, even between married couples, against interracial marriage, for mandatory prayer in schools, against contraception, even for married couples, etc.
- Zachriel | 03/05/2014 @ 06:29M: The thing y’all are deliberately misunderstanding is…pressuring people to do what you want (liberals and democrats), versus offering them a way not to do, what you don’t want them to do (conservatives and Republicans).
Z: That’s not what you said above, but okay.
Actually, it is.
If the difference is outside y’all’s ability to understand, that is not my problem.
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2014 @ 06:30mkfreeberg: Actually, it is.
You said “never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’”. There are many groups on the right urging people to not sign up for ObamaCare, especially young people.
Furthermore, conservative groups often do want to force people to do or not do various things. For instance, the then attorney general of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, wanted to reintroduce laws against sodomy.
- Zachriel | 03/05/2014 @ 07:49You said “never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’”. There are many groups on the right urging people to not sign up for ObamaCare, especially young people.
And y’all can’t find ONE single example…not one…using those three words, put together. In sequence.
Hey, if y’all can be so sticky-technical about things that the POINT of what was said, goes flying over y’all’s mollusky head(s)…I get to do that too. Got an example of those three words being used, in sequence?
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2014 @ 18:33mkfreeberg: And y’all can’t find ONE single example…not one…using those three words, put together. In sequence.
In other words, you can’t defend your previous statement, nor will you simply retract it.
We’ve shown not only that groups on the right are encouraging people to opt-out of ObamaCare, but we’ve also addressed your larger point in which you falsely claimed that those on the right don’t advocate the use of force over others concerning decisions in their personal lives.
- Zachriel | 03/05/2014 @ 18:43In other words, you can’t defend your previous statement, nor will you simply retract it.
The statement stands, unless y’all can bring some evidence that directly contradicts it.
It gets back to that “can’t refute a statement unless you understand what the statement is” thing. I know it’s a pain-in-the-tentacles, but that’s just how it is.
Furthermore, conservative groups often do want to force people to do or not do various things. For instance, the then attorney general of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, wanted to reintroduce laws against sodomy.
If people don’t like it, they can vote against it. If the law passes and people don’t like it, they can leave. It’s the right to peaceably assemble guaranteed in the First Amendment.
Liberals, on the other hand — when they say “nobody should be allowed to” they really mean it. The minimum wage of a particular state doesn’t excite them too much. When the federal minimum wage becomes the focus of debate, suddenly they’re all focused. They want to constrain the actions and motives of people they will never, ever meet.
Then, when it’s time to hammer out the details of these laws that will be applied to people they will never, ever meet, suddenly they’re all so full of ideas about who should not be allowed to participate in the discussions. That’s why more and more people are coming around to the idea that liberalism is a mental disorder. It is the obsessive-compulsive manufacture of rules to be applied to people who do useful things, by people who don’t know how to do anything except come up with rules.
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2014 @ 19:04mkfreeberg: The statement stands, unless y’all can bring some evidence that directly contradicts it.
We already have. There is a significant effort on the political right to convince people to not sign up for ObamaCare.
You were wrong.
mkfreeberg: If people don’t like it, they can vote against it. If the law passes and people don’t like it, they can leave.
That’s irrelevant to the false point you raised, which was that people on the political right don’t use force over the personal lives of others.
You were wrong.
- Zachriel | 03/05/2014 @ 19:10We already have. There is a significant effort on the political right to convince people to not sign up for ObamaCare.
You were wrong.
Really? Which one of y’all’s examples put together the three words “don’t sign up,” in sequence?
I have to ask, since y’all have demonstrated that y’all can’t understand meanings. Did y’all have an example to offer that fulfills this criteria? Just one?
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2014 @ 19:23You’re a hoot.
- Zachriel | 03/06/2014 @ 05:58My claim was “The kind of freedom people on the political right champion, includes the freedom to choose not to be free. Once again, we see ObamaCare is the perfect example. I saw President Obama and His political allies urging people to log on to the website that didn’t work, and sign up. And I saw lots of advocates and pundits and politicians on the ‘right,’ making much of the website’s problems and the potential for compromise of private health information. But I never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’ or ‘we have to stop people from signing up.'”
So there’s something you’re missing here, since y’all are making the mistake of trying to provide evidence to refute a statement y’all don’t understand, thus y’all’s efforts to gather evidence are doomed to fail because y’all don’t have the competence to gather the evidence.
Y’all have made it clear y’all think — helping people through the steps to avoid signing up after those people have made the decision they don’t want to, is tantamount to forcing them not to sign up. This shows y’all don’t understand the difference between helping people with a choice, and forcing the “choice” on them. So I could explain more. But, baby steps. It would be like explaining calculus to an elementary school student who hasn’t mastered the carrying-of-the-one quite yet.
Well — if y’all like being liberals, y’all can keep it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/06/2014 @ 06:21mkfreeberg: The kind of freedom people on the political right champion, includes the freedom to choose not to be free.
And we pointed to many examples of those on the political right who want to use force over people’s personal lives. Social conservatives have supported laws against sodomy, even between married couples, against interracial marriage, for mandatory prayer in schools, against contraception, even for married couples, etc.
mkfreeberg: But I never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’ or ‘we have to stop people from signing up.’”
Groups on the right were urging people to opt-out, especially the young.
- Zachriel | 03/06/2014 @ 07:08Groups on the right were urging people to opt-out, especially the young.
Translation: Y’ALL interpreted my statement a CERTAIN WAY and then Y’ALL went out looking for evidence to contradict it, which passed muster with this according to Y’ALL’s interpretation of the evidence as well as Y’ALL’s interpretation of my statement, and so now Y’ALL are trying to sell this tortured equivalence that Y’ALL THINK is just fine.
Because it’s summarily eliminated as a possibility that anybody, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, can see any of this any other way.
Y’all are doing a great job showing why liberals tend to 1) produce crappy results, and 2) get surprised by those crappy results. ObamaCare roll-out, Detroit, Chicago, and wasn’t Sarah Palin an idiot for saying Russia might invade the Ukraine. Derr!! We didn’t think that would happen, and neither should-you-have.
If y’all like it, y’all can keep it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/06/2014 @ 07:27mkfreeberg: Y’ALL interpreted my statement a CERTAIN WAY
Um, how else would you interpret it? Urging people to opt-out of ObamaCare seems to be the same as urging people to not sign up for ObamaCare.
mkfreeberg: The kind of freedom people on the political right champion, includes the freedom to choose not to be free.
We pointed to many examples of those on the political right who want to use force over people’s personal lives. Social conservatives have supported laws against sodomy, even between married couples, against interracial marriage, for mandatory prayer in schools, against contraception, even for married couples, etc.
- Zachriel | 03/06/2014 @ 07:33Um, how else would you interpret it?
How would y’all have me explain it?
We’ve established y’all don’t understand the distinction between force and assistance. It’s been proven beyond any possible doubt.
How would I then compress this concept to fit y’all’s limited understanding?
- mkfreeberg | 03/06/2014 @ 07:35mkfreeberg: How would y’all have me explain it?
With reason. How is opting out of ObamaCare distinct from not signing up for ObamaCare?
mkfreeberg: The kind of freedom people on the political right champion, includes the freedom to choose not to be free.
We pointed to many examples of those on the political right who want to use force over people’s personal lives. Social conservatives have supported laws against sodomy, even between married couples, against interracial marriage, for mandatory prayer in schools, against contraception, even for married couples, etc.
- Zachriel | 03/06/2014 @ 07:36How is opting out of ObamaCare distinct from not signing up for ObamaCare?
This, right here, is the problem. The distinction isn’t between “opting out” or “not signing up” – the distinction is between encouraging a choice or forcibly making it for others.
It’s the same category error on display in the comments here. A law permitting a choice is different than a law preventing one – a much larger difference, in fact, than whether the law forces participation or forbids it.
Giving bunches of examples about how “your side did this too” are irrelevant, really, and in more than one way:
1. If it was wrong to do it when one side does it, it’s wrong for the other side. You have to either excuse both or permit both, unless you are making your case on other grounds.
2. Using examples of legislative force have nothing to do with an example of someone using only persuasion, information, and voluntary help.
3. The examples you use aren’t really examples of one side imposing on another… all those measures existed when there was broad, bipartisan support for them; they ended when that support eroded and the laws were done away with.
4. To anticipate and answer another example of this error – recent efforts to permit prayer in schools at the students’ discretion are not “mandatory” prayer, even if the courts refuse to allow it. Again: the law has swung from one to the other direction – from compulsion to forbiddance – but it is still law, still force.
- nightfly | 03/06/2014 @ 08:56nightfly: The distinction isn’t between “opting out” or “not signing up” – the distinction is between encouraging a choice or forcibly making it for others.
Mkfreeberg’s original statement was “I never did see people on the right saying ‘don’t sign up’.” While it may very be true he never saw it, there is, in fact, a number of groups on the political right who are urging people to opt-out of ObamaCare.
nightfly: A law permitting a choice is different than a law preventing one – a much larger difference, in fact, than whether the law forces participation or forbids it.
Yes, that’s understood, but mkfreeberg made a claim about whether people on the right were advocating that people not sign up for ObamaCare.
nightfly: 1. If it was wrong to do it when one side does it, it’s wrong for the other side.
Okay.
nightfly: 2. Using examples of legislative force have nothing to do with an example of someone using only persuasion, information, and voluntary help.
True enough. However, mkfreeberg said people on the right don’t advocate force in matters of people’s personal lives, and that simply wasn’t true.
nightfly: 3. The examples you use aren’t really examples of one side imposing on another
Of course they are. Just because a group is a despised minority doesn’t mean they aren’t being imposed upon.
nightfly: 4. To anticipate and answer another example of this error – recent efforts to permit prayer in schools at the students’ discretion are not “mandatory” prayer
Having the government lead prayer is certainly coercion. In any case, we were referring to previous periods when conservatives did advocate mandatory prayer. They lost that constitutional battle, so they now rename it “voluntary”, but it’s still coercive.
- Zachriel | 03/06/2014 @ 09:19The examples you used were sodomy laws, anti-contraception laws, and school prayer… where in fact is the “despised minority” imposed upon by any of those three things? Married couples are a despised minority? People who didn’t want to be near praying, even if they weren’t participating? The only example fitting your description are the miscegnation laws, which fell when challenged and rightly so.
You see, in order to rebut point three there, you left out rather an important part of it – those laws, where they existed, were the choice of a whole community, and they were repealed when that choice changed – even if only a minority of that community protested.
As for point four… no, having students free to pray if they wish, not led by any teacher, is the very definition of voluntary. We already dealt with the mandatory part and moved on… again, permission to do something rather than being ordered to or not to, is not merely “renamed” but an actual different thing.
- nightfly | 03/06/2014 @ 09:45nightfly: The examples you used were sodomy laws, anti-contraception laws, and school prayer… where in fact is the “despised minority” imposed upon by any of those three things?
You said that it wasn’t “one side” imposing on another. It’s a matter of some conservatives wanting to impose their morality on others whether they constitute a majority or not. In many regions, they have exerted significant political power, in others not. Perhaps you even agree with them, but that’s not material either. The point remains that conservatives have wanted to impose their morality on others.
nightfly: People who didn’t want to be near praying, even if they weren’t participating?
Conservatives supported mandatory prayer and pledges until the courts overturned those laws. They try to push the envelope where they can.
nightfly: The only example fitting your description are the miscegnation laws, which fell when challenged and rightly so.
When challenged? So no one challenged miscegenation laws until Loving v. Virginia?
nightfly: having students free to pray if they wish, not led by any teacher, is the very definition of voluntary.
Sure, but that’s not what conservatives advocated then, and not what many conservatives still would prefer. Mkfreeberg was incorrect in saying that conservatives never want to impose their beliefs on others.
- Zachriel | 03/06/2014 @ 15:58However, mkfreeberg said people on the right don’t advocate force in matters of people’s personal lives, and that simply wasn’t true.
Ah, here we come to the source of the confusion, and it’s the same as it was last time. Y’all have a pre-canned, pre-cut-and-pasted, pre-rehearsed beatdown for anyone with conservative sympathies who says something similar but not quite equal to what I said; in this case, I would guess that is “Whenever someone passes or supports a law that takes choice away from people, that advocate is liberal and not conservative.” My comment was specifically about ObamaCare. And, what I said remains true: Liberals want more people signing up, so it is within the realm of consideration to deprive people of the option of not signing up. Conservatives, using y’all’s own examples, educate people on how not to sign up if they don’t want to which, as nightfly has explained above — is different.
Painted into a corner by y’all’s own transmogrification of what I said so that it fits in to the thing y’all really want to debunk, y’all are forced to use the tried-and-true “We must be right and you must be wrong, for we cannot understand the difference.” It might even have some weight if y’all weren’t keeping y’all’s identities, in fact y’all’s quantity, some sort of closely-guarded secret.
As it is, y’all’s argument boils down to this:
We offer A to debunk B.
What mkfreeberg said is C and not B. Common sense says B and C are not the same.
However — Let’s just pretend B and C are identical so that we can use our A since we’re just chomping at the bit to do it. We worked really, really, really hard trying to find it and then copying it into our source database/file thing. Besides, we’re Millennial kids, and when Millennial kids work really really really hard on something, we must succeed since our generation doesn’t understand disappointment.
Besides, when we can’t understand something, that’s proof positive that whatever it is, shouldn’t count, since we’re so respectable. That much is obvious. You don’t know who we are!
Well, shoot. That’s convincing. I know I’m convinced.
mkfreeberg: Y’all have a pre-canned, pre-cut-and-pasted, pre-rehearsed beatdown for anyone with conservative sympathies who says something similar but not quite equal to what I said; in this case, I would guess that is “Whenever someone passes or supports a law that takes choice away from people, that advocate is liberal and not conservative.” My comment was specifically about ObamaCare.
So, starting your discussion with a graph that equates the political left to tyranny, your comments were strictly parochial to ObamaCare. Sure. These are your words:
mk: Conservatives, on the other hand, want a world in which everybody is free to be as liberal or conservative or libertarian or anarchist as they want to be.
That statement isn’t true, of course, as we’ve already shown. Many conservative want to enforce their version of morality on others.
- Zachriel | 03/07/2014 @ 07:45mk: Conservatives, on the other hand, want a world in which everybody is free to be as liberal or conservative or libertarian or anarchist as they want to be.
That statement isn’t true, of course, as we’ve already shown. Many conservative want to enforce their version of morality on others.
I think the verb y’all want to use is “force,” but without regard to that, nightfly has already explained why the difference between conservatives and liberals does hold up.
Ultimately, y’all’s rebuttal seems to be “We don’t see a difference so nobody else should either.” Even if we knew who y’all were, that probably still wouldn’t quite cut it. “It’s a new rule and we don’t like it” ≠ “it is force.”
Like, for example, this. Is that what y’all mean by “Many conservatives want to enforce their vision of morality on others”? Would that be an erosion of freedom? Oh wait, I’m sorry — of liberty?
- mkfreeberg | 03/07/2014 @ 07:53mkfreeberg: I think the verb y’all want to use is “force,”
Sure. Many conservative advocate force to enforce their version of morality on others. They do not want people to be free to be as liberal or libertarian or anarchist as they want to be.
- Zachriel | 03/07/2014 @ 08:25This whole “cut-n-paste our canned rebuttal” tactic reminds me of something…. ah yes, here it is:
Apologies for the length of the excerpt, but it really says all that needs to be said about the Zachriel and their signature style.
Yo, Cuttlefish — is it painful to be such a cliche? I’d think it would hurt, at least a little bit.
- Severian | 03/07/2014 @ 08:28Severian: it really says all that needs to be said about the Zachriel and their signature style.
Our points were specific and directed towards the claims actually made, not some “general emotional meaning”.
- Zachriel | 03/07/2014 @ 10:22Hmmm…. nope, missed it by thaaat much. The second part of y’all’s signature style being, of course, a wonderfully quixotic lack of reading comprehension.
Good thing the coursework at Chesty LaRue’s Erotic Massage Academy doesn’t rely over-much on library time.
- Severian | 03/07/2014 @ 11:27Severian: missed it by thaaat much
Hehe. I read that and heard Don Adams’ voice.
- Captain Midnight | 03/07/2014 @ 13:36Thanks! I’m trying to come up with some new ways to mock these idiots.
Part of the problem is that you have to front-load the jokes. A lot of their “reading comprehension” issues stem from the fact that there’s at least two of them, and in their eagerness to tag in, neither reads much past the second or third line of any response.
Check out the Sowell thread, for instance. Cuttlefish A started things, and quickly ran aground. He knew he was busted and about to get righteously hammered, and so he started pulling the ol’ we-don’t-understand-that maneuver. But then Squid B tags in, and — not realizing that it’s part of the mockery of A — starts actually attempting to do the exercise (and failing hilariously). But then he tags out, and back comes Captain Obtuse, who behaves as if the whole thread had gone in a different direction entirely….
Reminds me of a teacher we all had to endure back in high school. We long suspected that she only read the first page of any essay, so once I’d gotten my grade locked in I submitted a paper with a nice first page, but everything thereafter was about Herbert Hoover’s secret balloon farm on Mars….
Wait… do you think…. naaahhh, can’t be. She must be like 90 by now. Though the Cuttlefish do exhibit the mental acuity of a geriatric government employee….
- Severian | 03/07/2014 @ 15:28Just because Conservatives believe in your right to fail, that does not mean we are for inequality, only that we believe that success should not be guaranteed, that you should be free to fail and I should not have to pay for your failure. Most liberals lump Republicans in with Conservatives and they are rarely the same.
The chart is correct, that we have some that have claimed to be conservative that turned out to be Progresisve/RINO’s does not change that. Conservatives believe in the freedom of man and being free, man must also be free to fail; Progressives do not, well, “because there ought to be a law” or “if we have to force you into a village we will!”
If you ever hear a Conservative say otherwise, he is NOT a conservative and there is your Proof.
- RobinKaty | 03/10/2014 @ 21:04RobinKaty: Conservatives believe in the freedom of man and being free
There are many conservatives who want to impose their views of morality on others. Words are defined by meaning, so your use of the term should encompass social conservatives.
RobinKaty: If you ever hear a Conservative say otherwise, he is NOT a conservative
No True Conservative™, anyway.
- Zachriel | 03/11/2014 @ 10:45http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I was taught the top chart in high school and college, and while I mostly agree with the bottom chart, the stickler is the “Total Freedom” of anarchy. As I see it, the bottom chart is a measure of government, from 100% government of the endpoint on the left to 0% government of the endpoint on the right. To agree fully with the bottom chart, I’d change the “Total Freedom” text to “Zero Government.”
With that change, any use of “Left” or “Right” could be used with clarity based on the amount of government championed by the person/philosophy/group instead of relying on some definition derived from who sat where in France over two hundred years ago.
- Captain Midnight | 03/11/2014 @ 12:04Captain Midnight,
yeah, that “total freedom” thing kinda bugged me, too. Anarchy is actually a rather regulated place, if you read Bakunin or Robert Nozick.
But given that most of the people who should know best can’t bring themselves to admit that the National Socialists were, in fact, socialists, I’ll take the second chart any day. The first step in education these days is to learn how much of what you know ain’t so.
- Severian | 03/11/2014 @ 12:31Captain Midnight: With that change, any use of “Left” or “Right” could be used with clarity based on the amount of government championed by the person/philosophy/group …
The problem with that is that it isn’t consistent with how people actually use the term; for instance, social conservatives.
- Zachriel | 03/11/2014 @ 13:28Have y’all taken the trouble to ask people how they use the term?
Like for example, the social conservatives?
- mkfreeberg | 03/11/2014 @ 13:42mkfreeberg: Have y’all taken the trouble to ask people how they use the term?
Well, we could start with a dictionary, which is a compendium of word usage.
Merriam-Webster
conservative, believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society
Oxford Dictionary
conservative, a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics
The number of examples of social conservatism is vast. It can be expressed in different ways depending on the context. Catholics are considered conservative when they advocate for laws against contraception. George Wallace was considered a conservative for resisting the end of segregation. Ken Cuccinelli is considered a conservative for advocating laws against sodomy. Churchill was considered a conservative when he said Britain should keep its empire.
- Zachriel | 03/11/2014 @ 14:03Nice dodge, but it looks like y’all’s answer to the question is a no. Y’all haven’t asked people how they use the term.
- mkfreeberg | 03/11/2014 @ 14:25mkfreeberg: Y’all haven’t asked people how they use the term.
We did better than that. We referred to experts in lexicography, who have collected vast amounts of data concerning how words are used. We also provided specific examples of persons and positions that are widely referred to as conservative.
- Zachriel | 03/11/2014 @ 14:32Captain Midnight: With that change, any use of “Left” or “Right” could be used with clarity based on the amount of government championed by the person/philosophy/group …
Z: The problem with that is that it isn’t consistent with how people actually use the term; for instance, social conservatives.
There are two options:
1) Look at a French seating chart and try to pound current political square pegs into the round holes of “Left” or “Right” from two centuries ago.
or
2) Using a scale going from 0 to 100% government control, look at the person/philosophy/group in question and see where it would fall along that scale relative to others.
The first requires consulting with others to make sure one is using the acceptable label as dictated by the popularity of its usage. The second option doesn’t require the approbation of others in its determination. A simple check of whether the person/philosophy/group is calling for more or less government is sufficient for the determination.
In very likely case you are still confused, calling for more government puts that person/philosophy/group to the Left of a person/philosophy/group calling for less. So when a person calls for government involvement to make something happen, and another person is calling for less government to make the determination of whether or how something is done, the first person may be correctly stated as being to the Left of the second person who is logically Right of the first. If the same two people reverse their call in a different situation, then their positions on the scale also changes.
It’s really that simple. People who are in favor of greater government will instinctively dislike the 0 to 100% government control scale because it, of necessity, places them closer to dictators who love massive government control.
- Captain Midnight | 03/11/2014 @ 16:33Captain Midnight: 1) Look at a French seating chart and try to pound current political square pegs into the round holes of “Left” or “Right” from two centuries ago.
We didn’t refer to the French revolutionary period, but to current definitions.
Captain Midnight: 2) Using a scale going from 0 to 100% government control, look at the person/philosophy/group in question and see where it would fall along that scale relative to others.
Conservative Catholics want to use the power of government to outlaw artificial contraceptives.
George Wallace wanted to use the power of government to keep blacks segregated.
Ken Cuccinelli wants to make sodomy a felony.
Churchill wanted to use military power to maintain British control of other peoples.
All of these positions are widely considered conservative positions.
Captain Midnight: The first requires consulting with others to make sure one is using the acceptable label as dictated by the popularity of its usage.
Words are defined by usage, especially usage over a period of time. Lexicographers study word usage to determine useful definitions.
Captain Midnight: In very likely case you are still confused, calling for more government puts that person/philosophy/group to the Left of a person/philosophy/group calling for less.
As we have shown, many conservatives advocate more government.
“Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions. ”
- Zachriel | 03/11/2014 @ 17:48http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
We did better than that.
No, y’all shifted. Y’all said it had to do with “how people actually use the term,” then when I called y’all out on it y’all went running to the dictionary.
Are y’all changing y’all’s previous stated position, that the words should describe the meanings people have in mind when they use the term? Because it isn’t at all hard to find people who think “conservative” has something to do with fewer rules and smaller government.
Particularly among people who use the term more often. Particularly among people who identify with that word. Liberals, on the other hand, aren’t known for their expertise in figuring out what motivates their opposition. So we would have to be sure and filter out the interpretations of liberals when we try to figure out what conservatism is, since liberals are just ignorant about that kind of thing. Wouldn’t want to allow that degree of ignorance to contaminate our informal-study here.
Did the dictionaries remember to filter out that sort of rampant liberal ignorance?
- mkfreeberg | 03/11/2014 @ 18:02mkfreeberg: Y’all said it had to do with “how people actually use the term,” then when I called y’all out on it y’all went running to the dictionary.
Actually, the dictionary is authoritative on how well-established words are used.
mkfreeberg: Because it isn’t at all hard to find people who think “conservative” has something to do with fewer rules and smaller government.
Well, there’s a few just on this blog. But that is not how most people use the term. We provided not only several authoritative sources, but several examples that anyone can check.
- Zachriel | 03/11/2014 @ 18:28But that is not how most people use the term.
Of course it is. Most people would say, for example, that “establishment Republicans” are less conservative than the Tea Party. It is the establishment Republicans who want to cling to old institutions and the Tea Party that wants to get rid of them. So that takes care of your “institutions” canard once and for all.
Now that we’ve dispensed with that. What we’re seeing here is the folly of the passive-voice statement; it defies objective measurement. Y’all say “most people use” the term this way, I say “most people use” the term another way. Good arguments can be made that we’re both right. And that demonstrates that we’re dealing with a poor strain of logic here.
But as long as we are using it, the Tea Party is more conservative than the establishment Republicans, according to current use. The only way to explain that, is that “conservatism” isn’t about preserving institutions in the here & now, it’s about less government in the here & now.
Conservatives advocate for a conservation of real freedom. When they oppose freedom, what they’re opposing is freedom that would infringe on the freedom of another. When liberals seek to expand freedom, you’ll invariably find they’re trying to expand freedom that would infringe on the freedom of another.
- mkfreeberg | 03/11/2014 @ 18:37Once again we see the disconnect between “wanting to understand something” and the stuff Orwell was talking about, the “general emotional meaning” without reference to details. For instance, I keep reading that this Aleksandr Dugin cat is a conservative. And yet, he’s an out-n-proud communist revanchist. What “traditional social institutions” is he trying to preserve, pray tell? The radical Marxist ones from the USSR’s glory days?
What the Cuttlefish mean to say, of course, is that everyone they agree with uses the term in that way. Conservatives are mean and scary, this Dugin guy is mean and scary, and therefore Dugin is a conservative, even though he’s the hardest of hardline communists. It’s useless, silly, and can be downright dangerous, but it gives their tentacles a warm fuzzy, so it must be right.
- Severian | 03/11/2014 @ 20:27Z: Conservative Catholics want to use the power of government to outlaw artificial contraceptives.
Wait a consarned minute.
One hundred years ago, artificial contraceptives were illegal in most jurisdictions. It wasn’t a Catholic idea, either – pretty much everyone agreed on this. Margaret Sanger was fairly infamous about wanting to legalize contraception as a means of advancing her ideas of eugenics, racial purity, and a diminution of the “unfit” population.
Of course eventually that was recast in terms more palatable to the general population and the laws were overturned. And while Catholicism is pretty much alone now in regarding artificial contraception as immoral, there isn’t a movement to outlaw it again. The only thing close is opposition to use of the morning after pill since it may actually destroy embryos.
So right there – stop it with branding an entire faith of millions with Think Progress’ and Mother Jones’ hallucinations of what they imagine believers to be. One tiny portion of people who say or do something are just that, a tiny portion of people.
Z: As we have shown, many conservatives advocate more government.
“Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions.”
And this, again, is bullshit. “Traditional social institutions” is not a synonym for government.” There are churches and bridge clubs and charitable societies and the Elks. There are formal and informal gatherings of friends and organizations of every description that have no connection at all to the State, formed by citizens who share interests and need no official permission to enjoy their lives. Most importantly, there is the family, which predates and gives rise to all other human society, and is essential for its health.
Even if we grant that a government is one of many traditional institutions, it doesn’t follow at all that it’s the most important, or that its constant expansion and supremacy over all else is healthy. It doesn’t follow that every law is a good idea. Wanting lower taxes, fewer laws, and smaller government offices is not incompatible with retaining government itself.
- nightfly | 03/11/2014 @ 23:17mkfreeberg: Most people would say, for example, that “establishment Republicans” are less conservative than the Tea Party.
Of course the Tea Party is more conservative than establishment Republicans. While establishment Republicans want to put a brake on the Administration, the Tea Party wants to recover American traditions they felt have been lost to the Kenyan usurper.
Severian: For instance, I keep reading that this Aleksandr Dugin cat is a conservative.
Dugin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire. He’s usually considered hard right.
Severian: One hundred years ago, artificial contraceptives were illegal in most jurisdictions.
Yes, and those who resisted liberalization were the conservatives.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 05:41Last quote should have been attributed to nightfly.
nightfly: One hundred years ago, artificial contraceptives were illegal in most jurisdictions.
Yes, and those who resisted liberalization were the conservatives.
nightfly: “Traditional social institutions” is not a synonym for government.
We agree.
nightfly: Even if we grant that a government is one of many traditional institutions, it doesn’t follow at all that it’s the most important, or that its constant expansion and supremacy over all else is healthy.
We agree.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 05:43While establishment Republicans want to put a brake on the Administration, the Tea Party wants to recover American traditions they felt have been lost to the Kenyan usurper.
So the “establishment” is not an “institution.” Interesting. Seems there ought to be a “Sarcastic Willy Wonka” graphic to put up here, so I can beg y’all to tell me more.
Could the argument not be made that among all of our “institutions,” one of the oldest, if not the oldest, would be the non-productive telling the productive how to do their producing? That then would be a rather ancient institution claiming today’s liberal movement as its constant champion.
- mkfreeberg | 03/12/2014 @ 05:54mkfreeberg: So the “establishment” is not an “institution.”
It’s not that complicated. There a direction in time. Liberals want to move forward. Conservatives want to slow change, or reverse it.
A conservative is “a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” — Ambrose Bierce
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 06:02That’d all be great to point out if the problem was lack of comprehension on my part.
The reading comprehension thing, once again. Y’all have just advanced an argument that doesn’t work unless we pretend “establishment” is the opposite of “institution.”
- mkfreeberg | 03/12/2014 @ 06:13mkfreeberg: The reading comprehension thing, once again. Y’all have just advanced an argument that doesn’t work unless we pretend “establishment” is the opposite of “institution.”
Bierce didn’t just make up the terms.
Establishment Republicans are trying to slow changes the Obama Administration is working towards. That puts them to the right, or conservative side of the the Obama Administration. The Tea Party wants to undo many of the liberal reforms of the Obama Administration, and of the last generation. Even their very name hearkens back to what they see as an idyllic past. That puts them to the right of establishment Republicans.
We’ve provided authoritative sources. We’ve provided examples and counterexamples. It’s really not as difficult as you want to make it.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 06:41They’re clearly just flailing around for anything to muddy the waters at this point. Cuttlefish gotta squirt, yo.
Note the feebleness of their “replies” to Nightfly. “We agree.” Ah, so you agree with statements that, in context, completely demolish whatever lame weaksauce objections y’all think you’re making?
Or their response to me (the one they actually managed to correctly attribute, that is): “Dugin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire. He’s usually considered hard right.” Uh huh. And the “Russian Empire” he wants to reestablish was the one they had under the USSR. He’s a C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-T. His program is called “National B-O-L-S-H-E-V-I-S-M.” Therefore, “hard right” is exactly the same as “hard left,” so long as y’all get to go on record claiming Dugin’s a bad guy.*
Fascinating. Do go on.
*I’m really starting to think liberals’ only problem with this Dugin guy is that he’s the idea man behind Putin, who seems to get a real kick out of making Obama look like an ignorant, naive assclown. Not a high bar, obviously, but were it not for that, I bet the Mother Joneses of the world would be cheering a return of their beloved Soviets.
- Severian | 03/12/2014 @ 06:42Again, the problem is not lack of understanding on my part. It follows that just repeating y’all’s rhetoric isn’t going to fix anything.
The problem is that y’all have been caught in a contradiction. An unworkable one. That’s because y’all’s definitions simply don’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 03/12/2014 @ 06:44Severian: Ah, so you agree with statements that, in context, completely demolish whatever lame weaksauce objections y’all think you’re making?
Not at all. Traditional institutions is not a synonym for government, and nightfly provided some examples. He also pointed out that even if government is treated as an institution, that doesn’t mean expansion is necessarily a good thing. Again, we agree. Our comments concerned nomenclature, not whether such changes are good or bad.
Severian: And the “Russian Empire” he wants to reestablish was the one they had under the USSR.
He considers it the natural empire of Russia, predating the Soviet Union.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 06:48mkfreeberg: The problem is that y’all have been caught in a contradiction.
The Tea Party is to the right because they want to undo many of the liberal changes of the last generation wrought by the Kenyan usurper.
mkfreeberg: That’s because y’all’s definitions simply don’t work.
Please be sure to send your thoughts to the editors of the Oxford Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and the multitudes of scholars, journalists, politicians, and others, who use the orthodox definition.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 06:51We’ve been here before a few times. What they’re demonstrating is the exact opposite of a learning process.
Z: Conservatives act to preserve traditional institutions, liberals act to create change and progress…
M: This doesn’t work, because it would have to ignore all the examples where Conservatives produced the change. It would necessarily say Newt Gingrich’s 104th Congress would be more liberal than the prior democrat-led Congress.
Z: It’s not that complicated. Conservatives act to preserve traditional institutions, liberals act to create change and progress…The Tea Party is to the right because they want to undo many of the liberal changes of the last generation wrought by the Kenyan usurper.
They want to come off as educated and learned. But we get to repeatedly watch them fail to learn anything, in fact, work at failing at it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/12/2014 @ 06:53mkfreeberg: This doesn’t work, because it would have to ignore all the examples where Conservatives produced the change. It would necessarily say Newt Gingrich’s 104th Congress would be more liberal than the prior democrat-led Congress.
The change that the conservatives wanted was a return to an envisioned previous state, primarily a smaller government, a reduction in welfare, and a emphasis on civic responsibility and family. All of this is consistent with protecting and preserving existing institutions that conservatives thought that government had infringed upon.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 07:00All of this is consistent with protecting and preserving existing institutions that conservatives thought that government had infringed upon.
Uh huh. And Aleksandr Dugin is a C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-T. That y’all insist on labeling “hard right.” The institutions he wants to “protect and preserve” are Marxist ones.
This is why your definitions don’t work. Please email your comments to Vladimir Putin, and tell him all the ways he and Newt Gingrich are ideological comrades-in-arms. I’m sure he needs a good chuckle these days.
- Severian | 03/12/2014 @ 07:43Severian: And Aleksandr Dugin is a C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-T.
Dugin explicitly advocates a “fourth political theory” that combines Bolshevism, Nazism, Ecologism, and Traditionalism. It’s anti-liberal, anti-free enterprise, and anti-modernity. And he thinks the Aryan race originated at the North Pole. He is regularly placed on the hard right.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 07:52Severian: For instance, I keep reading that this Aleksandr Dugin cat is a conservative.
Good example, by the way. He advocates autocratic Russian rule over other countries, yet is considered a figure on the political right. That doesn’t jive with the diagram above.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 07:56Jesus. That’s just pathetic, even for y’all.
- Severian | 03/12/2014 @ 08:10Severian: Jesus.
We’re agreeing that you provided a good example of someone who is considered to be on the political right who advocates authoritarian rule.
As for Jesus, he said his kingdom was not of this world.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 08:34Z: We didn’t refer to the French revolutionary period, but to current definitions.
And these current definitions find their roots in the French revolutionary period. You posted that here in a different threads. Discuss among yourselves to bring everyone up to speed.
Captain Midnight: 2) Using a scale going from 0 to 100% government control, look at the person/philosophy/group in question and see where it would fall along that scale relative to others.
Z: Conservative Catholics want to use the power of government to outlaw artificial contraceptives.
George Wallace wanted to use the power of government to keep blacks segregated.
Ken Cuccinelli wants to make sodomy a felony.
Churchill wanted to use military power to maintain British control of other peoples.
All of these positions are widely considered conservative positions.
And in none of these cases did you even attempt to see how they fall along the 0 to 100% government control scale. In each example you presented here, if the person/philosophy/group is calling for more government, then they will fall to the left of a person/philosophy/group calling for the same amount of government, who will fall to the left of a person/philosophy/group calling for less government.
As we have shown, many conservatives advocate more government
That’s not a problem with the 0 to 100% government control scale, but it is an issue with the classification that you favor. Despite knowing this is futile, I’ll give it a go anyway….
Let’s look at the recent trainwreak of Obamacare and three groups. Group A is calling for government to take control over about 17% of the economy by regulating health care. Group B says that what we had pre-trainwreak was working well enough so it should just remain. And Group C says that government meddling gave us the messed up health care situation in the first place, so the best action would be reducing the amount of government involvement.
To categorize these three groups under the Zachriel preferred method requires consulting dictionaries, looking at French parliamentary seating, and a trip to Wikipedia. Using the 0 to 100% government control scale, the classification is done as fast as I can type it up:
100% – A – B – C – 0%
Boom. Done. No need to look at R or D next to the politician’s name. No need to consult others whether a group has been considered liberal or conservative in the past. And no need to ponder whether they would be for or against Louis XVI’s monarchy.
But because it places the government-loving Left closer to dictators and brutal thugs, the elegance of the 0 to 100% government control scale has to be rejected by those who it correctly identifies as being on the left.
- Captain Midnight | 03/12/2014 @ 10:13We’re agreeing that you provided a good example of someone who is considered to be on the political right who advocates authoritarian rule.
As for Jesus, he said his kingdom was not of this world.
I’ll take “the saddest attempt at an argument I’ve seen in a long time” for $500, Alex.
- Severian | 03/12/2014 @ 10:28Captain Midnight: And these current definitions find their roots in the French revolutionary period.
Sure. So their general meaning has been relatively constant for over two centuries. Meanwhile, the center has moved left. In any case, we referred to current usage.
Captain Midnight: In each example you presented here, if the person/philosophy/group is calling for more government, then they will fall to the left of a person/philosophy/group calling for the same amount of government, who will fall to the left of a person/philosophy/group calling for less government.
That is not the case. Nowadays, it is typical on the political right to advocate for less government in the economic sphere, but more in the social sphere. Religious fundamentalists often advocate for morals laws, and they are considered to be conservatives or on the political right.
Captain Midnight: Group A … Group B … Group C
Group A, wants to outlaw contraceptives
Group B, wants to liberalize laws on contraceptives
People in Group A are known as conservatives. People in Group B want to reduce government interference in what they consider to be a private matter. Similar situations applied to laws against miscegenation, sodomy, etc. See Loving vs. Virginia.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 10:42Captain Midnight: In each example you presented here, if the person/philosophy/group is calling for more government, then they will fall to the left of a person/philosophy/group calling for the same amount of government, who will fall to the left of a person/philosophy/group calling for less government.
Z: That is not the case. Nowadays, it is typical on the political right to advocate for less government in the economic sphere, but more in the social sphere. Religious fundamentalists often advocate for morals laws, and they are considered to be conservatives or on the political right.
You are confused because you insist on using the old and busted method. The new hotness of the 0 to 100% government control scale is beyond your comprehension while you cling tenaciously to the old and busted. So let’s look at the issue here.
Issue: Religious fundamentalists are seen as politically right and call for less government, but they want more government regarding moral laws.
Issue: Big government loving liberals want an increase in government in every aspect of life, but government should be kept out of drugs and sex.
These gross exaggerations are examples of the difficulty you are having in this discussion. But with a modicum of reading comprehension, you can see that the new hotness model already covered it when I wrote, “If the same two people reverse their call in a different situation, then their positions on the scale also changes.”
I’ll break it down simply for you. When a group calls for more government, that group is correctly placed to the left of a group calling for less government. If that same first group advocates later on a different subject for less government, it is correctly placed, for that subject, to the right of a group advocating for more government.
Group A: We want more morality laws!
Group B: We want fewer morality laws!
Morality laws: 100% – A – B – 0%
Group A: We want fewer health care laws!
Group B: We want more health care laws!
Health care laws: 100% – B – A – 0%
The old and busted has difficulty with people holding different views on various subjects. The new hotness doesn’t have this problem.
Old and busted.
- Captain Midnight | 03/12/2014 @ 11:17New hotness.
Captain Midnight: Religious fundamentalists are seen as politically right and call for less government, but they want more government regarding moral laws.
They don’t call for less government when they call for more government regarding moral laws.
Captain Midnight: Big government loving liberals want an increase in government in every aspect of life, but government should be kept out of drugs and sex.
Every aspect of life certainly includes the private sphere.
Captain Midnight: Group A: We want more morality laws! = left
Except that is contrary to how people use the term. People who advocate for more laws regulating private lives are considered conservatives, the political right.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 11:28Captain Midnight: Religious fundamentalists are seen as politically right and call for less government, but they want more government regarding moral laws.
Z: They don’t call for less government when they call for more government regarding moral laws.
You obviously missed the “but” in my sentence. It has meaning. It is just as obvious that you missed the whole point about the contradictions I pointed out in those two issues. And it is obvious that you need help.
Z: Except that is contrary to how people use the term.
Old and busted.
Just admit that you are completely wedded to your existing Left/Right definitions and are incapable of exerting any effort in grasping the simplicity and superiority of the government control scale.
(By your own admission here, you are trying to maintain “traditional social institutions” of defining Left and Right. Which would make you a Conservative by the old and busted standard.)
- Captain Midnight | 03/12/2014 @ 11:55Captain Midnight: Just admit that you are completely wedded to your existing Left/Right definitions and are incapable of exerting any effort in grasping the simplicity and superiority of the government control scale.
It’s question of lexicography. What do people mean when they utter conservative. You want to redefine the word to suit your preconceptions, but it doesn’t comport with how nearly everyone else uses the term.
Captain Midnight: By your own admission here, you are trying to maintain “traditional social institutions” of defining Left and Right. Which would make you a Conservative by the old and busted standard.
While we understand that the use of words change over time, we tend to be conservative in that regard. This is not a close case, though, as we have shown that your usage is contrary to common usage. You seem to be conflating conservative with libertarian.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 12:00“Common usage.” Gosh how I love that term.
In the “common usage” of Aleksandr Dugin’s National Bolsheviks, they’re Bolsheviks, i.e. commies, i.e. leftists. But in the “common usage” of the Cuttlefish, they’re extreme right.
Which is a logical trap so retarded, I’m not at all surprised they fell into it.
If they maintain that Dugin and Co. aren’t commies, despite everything they themselves say and do and work for, then they’re committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Which they know is a fallacy, since they themselves brought it up as a fallacy.
If, on the other hand, they acknowledge that Dugin and Co. are commies, then it’s obviously quite possible to be both communist (hard left, according to “common usage”) and nationalist (“hard right” according to ditto). But they’ve declared this to be categorically impossible more times than I can count.
I guess there’s a third option — to claim that the “common usage” a group commonly uses to describe themselves is trumped by the “common usage” of, say, the local junior college’s political science department– but this is also a version of the True Scotsman fallacy. Not to mention all the other obvious absurdities it leads to (I doubt even the Cuttlefish are dogmatic enough to assert that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is either democratic or a republic, though the entire reading list of every course at Kim Il Sung University says otherwise).
So either “common usage” doesn’t mean what the Cuttlefish think it does, or la la la I can’t hear you.
Old and busted: Dogmatism
- Severian | 03/12/2014 @ 13:29New hotness: Actually thinking for yourself.
Severian: In the “common usage” of Aleksandr Dugin’s
Nearly everyone refers to Dugin as being on the political right. Please explain how this comports with your understanding of the term.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 13:45Captain Midnight: Just admit that you are completely wedded to your existing Left/Right definitions and are incapable of exerting any effort in grasping the simplicity and superiority of the government control scale.
Z: It’s question of lexicography. What do people mean when they utter conservative. You want to redefine the word to suit your preconceptions, but it doesn’t comport with how nearly everyone else uses the term.
I’m redefining “conservative”? The new hotness scale I’ve been writing about is a gauge of left vs. right, while you are the one who keeps bringing up conservative into the discussion. It’s almost as if you are reading from a script that doesn’t quite jive with what people are actually saying, but you’re running with answers off your script anyway.
When there exists two people/philosophies/groups with views about government involvement, there are two possibilities: 1) They agree on the amount of government, so they are at the same spot on the scale and cannot be said to be left or right of each other. 2) They have different ideas of the appropriate level of government, so one would be to the left of the other based on which people/philosophies/groups call for more government control. The other would necessarily be right of the first.
It’s really that simple and easy. I repeat this in the hopes that the repetition will inspire you to read and think about the concept, or maybe I’ll hit on the magic word that will click on the light of comprehension for you. Here’s hoping.
- Captain Midnight | 03/12/2014 @ 14:04Nearly everyone refers to Dugin as being on the political right. Please explain how this comports with your understanding of the term.
Derp derp derp derp derp. You figure it out. Y’all really, really, really need the reading comprehension practice.
- Severian | 03/12/2014 @ 15:23Still waiting for my example of Newt Gingrich being to the “left” of the democrat-led Congress he displaced in 1995, to be addressed…
What the Cuttlefish have going on here is the “black swan theory.” Just as “all swans are white” can never be scientifically proven, no matter how many white swans are captured or observed or photographed, you can never prove “left is about the new, right is about the old” no matter how many examples you cite. But a SINGLE black swan will implode the white-swan theory…just as Newt Gingrich utterly destroys their definition of “right” and “left.” For that matter, any example of a right/conservative leader introducing change over a left/liberal status quo will do that. Reagan in 1980 is another good example.
Their response to these examples is to simply filter them out. Which is as good as an admission of defeat.
- mkfreeberg | 03/12/2014 @ 17:36Captain Midnight: The new hotness scale I’ve been writing about is a gauge of left vs. right, while you are the one who keeps bringing up conservative into the discussion.
We’ve been discussing the original post.
Captain Midnight: When there exists two people/philosophies/groups with views about government involvement, there are two possibilities: 1) They agree on the amount of government, so they are at the same spot on the scale and cannot be said to be left or right of each other. 2) They have different ideas of the appropriate level of government, so one would be to the left of the other based on which people/philosophies/groups call for more government control. The other would necessarily be right of the first.
As long your use of the term left-right does not equate to what is commonly referred to as the political left and the political right, then sure, it’s tautological. You’ve defined it so.
Severian: You figure it out.
In other words, you can’t support your position.
mkfreeberg: Still waiting for my example of Newt Gingrich being to the “left” of the democrat-led Congress he displaced in 1995, to be addressed…
We did address it. The change that the conservatives led by Gingrich wanted was a return to an envisioned previous state, primarily a smaller government, a reduction in welfare, and a emphasis on civic responsibility and family. All of this is consistent with protecting and preserving existing institutions that conservatives thought that government had infringed upon.
- Zachriel | 03/12/2014 @ 18:07In other words, you can’t support your position
In other words, y’all can’t read.
But we knew that already.
If y’all are interested in Overcoming Asperger’s, we can try this exercise again. Summarize the comment at that link in your own words. Once you’ve managed that — if you ever do; I’m dubious — we’ll move on.
- Severian | 03/12/2014 @ 19:52Z: As long your use of the term left-right does not equate to what is commonly referred to as the political left and the political right, then sure, it’s tautological. You’ve defined it so.
As long as you persist in using an antiquated and ineffective method based on French revolutionary seating arrangements, you will continue to have the confusion that this discussion and others has demonstrated. There has been disagreement in the comments of this blog because the model, which you cling so tenaciously to, sucks. It’s like clinging to the old and busted Richter scale with all its flaws when the new hotness of the Magnitude scale without those flaws is available.
The new hotness scale is both simple and easy, but you don’t like it. Now I may have overlooked it, but I don’t recall reading any objection from you of the new hotness scale that points out a flaw in the scale. The only objections I’ve seen are that it doesn’t conform to the usage of the old and busted. Kinda like objecting to adopting the Magnitude scale because its numbers don’t line up exactly with the ones generated on the Richter scale.
Embrace the new hotness!
- Captain Midnight | 03/13/2014 @ 09:46Though to be fair, they’re not actually interested in learning anything. They’ve demonstrated that quite comprehensively (remember, these are the idiots who define “conservative” as “advocates for greater inequality”). If you just want to name-call your political opponents, the Old and Busted works fine.
- Severian | 03/13/2014 @ 10:50Captain Midnight: As long as you persist in using an antiquated and ineffective method based on French revolutionary seating arrangements …
As we said, we are referencing current usage.
Captain Midnight: The new hotness scale is both simple and easy, but you don’t like it.
There’s nothing wrong with working with a different scale (though the libertarian-authoritarian scale is hardly new), as long as it is not confused with other scales, such as the left-right political spectrum.
Severian: They’ve demonstrated that quite comprehensively (remember, these are the idiots who define “conservative” as “advocates for greater inequality”).
Do you have a citation for that quote? While some on the right certainly do advocate for greater inequality, conservatives often see social and economic inequality as a natural consequence of human differences.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2014 @ 12:43Do you have a citation for that quote?
Go back to y’all’s little text file — you know, the one you’ve been cutting and pasting from since at least 2005 –and do a ctrl-F.
- Severian | 03/13/2014 @ 12:52…some on the right certainly do advocate for greater inequality…
Did we ever get examples of this?
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2014 @ 13:32Captain Midnight: As long as you persist in using an antiquated and ineffective method based on French revolutionary seating arrangements …
Z: As we said, we are referencing current usage.
But of course you are. And the current usage is based on, all together now, French revolutionary seating arrangements. That is, after all, the source of Left and Right to describe political positions.
Captain Midnight: The new hotness scale is both simple and easy, but you don’t like it.
Z: There’s nothing wrong with working with a different scale (though the libertarian-authoritarian scale is hardly new), as long as it is not confused with other scales, such as the left-right political spectrum.
The French-based left-right political spectrum is confusing. And while it served its purpose back in the 18th Century, it’s teh suck here in the 21st. Happily, any confusion with the new hotness scale is eliminated when the old and busted is kissed goodbye and sent packing.
And I’ll take your silence as confirmation that you have not found a flaw in the new hotness scale.
- Captain Midnight | 03/13/2014 @ 14:14Severian: Go back to y’all’s little text file
In other words, no you don’t have a citation.
mkfreeberg: Did we ever get examples of this?
Severian mentioned an example, Aleksandr Dugin. He is widely considered to be on the hard ideological right, and wants to reestablish the Russian empire.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2014 @ 14:16Captain Midnight: And the current usage is based on, all together now, French revolutionary seating arrangements. That is, after all, the source of Left and Right to describe political positions.
That’s the origin of the terms, and while the center has moved, the basic meaning has persisted.
Captain Midnight: Happily, any confusion with the new hotness scale is eliminated when the old and busted is kissed goodbye and sent packing.
As we said, there’s nothing wrong with proposing a new political scale for discussion, but what you have proposed is nothing new. People have often talked about the spectrum of beliefs concerning what is the appropriate amount of government.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2014 @ 14:18In other words, no you don’t have a citation.
In other words, y’all’s legendary reading comprehension extends even to y’all’s own bullshit.
That settles that.
- Severian | 03/13/2014 @ 14:35Severian: That settles that.
The phrase you quoted “advocates for greater inequality” does not appear on that page. The phrase “greater inequality” appears 8 times, all by someone named Severian.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2014 @ 14:41https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/
In other words, y’all’s legendary reading comprehension extends even to y’all’s own bullshit.
Gotcha!
- Severian | 03/13/2014 @ 15:24Captain Midnight: And the current usage is based on, all together now, French revolutionary seating arrangements. That is, after all, the source of Left and Right to describe political positions.
Z: That’s the origin of the terms, and while the center has moved, the basic meaning has persisted.
Which is why we talk about the monarchy-loving Right and the monarchy-hating Left in the U.S. today.
Captain Midnight: Happily, any confusion with the new hotness scale is eliminated when the old and busted is kissed goodbye and sent packing.
Z: As we said, there’s nothing wrong with proposing a new political scale for discussion, but what you have proposed is nothing new. People have often talked about the spectrum of beliefs concerning what is the appropriate amount of government.
So your objections to the new hotness scale boil down to it’s not based on French seating arraignments, and it’s not new. Fascinating.
Let’s imagine an alternate reality where people discuss the “warm” colors of blue, red, and purple, and the “cool” colors of green, orange, and yellow. These classifications of warm and cool are due to the fashion trend set by Louis XVII during his long reign because he always placed blue, red, and purple flowers closer to the fireplace, while the green, orange, and yellow flowers were placed closer to the window. The spectrum of colors, from warmest to coolest was defined as blue, red, purple, green, orange, and yellow, and modern color charts often rank the colors in order using the warm/cool classification developed by the Flower King.
Later, a Danish scientist discovered the wavelengths of colors, and he decided to rank them based on increasing wavelength instead of placement in the Flower King’s bedroom. In his chart, the colors go purple, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red, and he devised an acronym to remember the order: PBGYOR. (Which probably explains why he was a famous scientist and not an ad agent.) He announced the new PBGYOR scale as being both simple and easy to use, while spraying the front row of his fellow scientists in the audience hall each time he tried to pronounce it. A self-identified flower lover and color enthusiast rose and denounced the new scale. “While I cannot find any flaw in the PBGYOR scale, it doesn’t conform to basic color usage. Simple? Bah! Easy? Double-bah! If it doesn’t conform to the way our beloved Louis XVII so beautifully arraigned the flowers in his bedroom, I do not like it. So to this PBGYOR scale, I say NON!”
- Captain Midnight | 03/13/2014 @ 15:29Captain Midnight: Which is why we talk about the monarchy-loving Right and the monarchy-hating Left in the U.S. today.
As we said, we were referring to current usage.
Captain Midnight: So your objections to the new hotness scale boil down to it’s not based on French seating arraignments, and it’s not new.
We have no objections whatsoever. You can certainly place people on a spectrum concerning how much government they want.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2014 @ 16:00Z: …the basic meaning has persisted.
Captain Midnight: Which is why we talk about the monarchy-loving Right and the monarchy-hating Left in the U.S. today.
Z: As we said, we were referring to current usage.
And here we see the inherent confusion of basic meaning of Left/Right political positions when based on French seating arrangements. But since it is absurd to be talking about the monarchy-loving Right and the monarchy-hating Left when discussing current U.S. politics, the basic meaning of Left/Right as it was originally formulated based on French seating arrangements doesn’t apply today. You have explained that you rely on the “current usage” of the basic meaning that doesn’t involve the French monarchy but is somehow applicable in our republic.
Completely unrelated, how many cubits tall are you?
Z: You can certainly place people on a spectrum concerning how much government they want.
FYI, I’ll be using the new hotness scale when discussing Left/Right labels on this blog. And knowing that, you won’t be confused by my usage. I’m so glad this has been handled.
- Captain Midnight | 03/13/2014 @ 16:50Captain Midnight: the basic meaning of Left/Right as it was originally formulated based on French seating arrangements doesn’t apply today
The basic philosophies still apply. The left advocates greater equality, while the right stands for preserving or recovering traditional institutions. And that is how people generally use the terms.
Captain Midnight: I’ll be using the new hotness scale when discussing Left/Right labels on this blog.
Pointing to the spectrum of belief from libertarian to authoritarian is perfectly reasonable, but conflating that with what others mean as political left and right is not.
There are people on the left who are authoritarian and people on the left who are libertarian. There are people on the right who are authoritarian and people on the right who are libertarian. They are orthogonal concepts.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2014 @ 18:19http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png
Severian mentioned an example, Aleksandr Dugin. He is widely considered to be on the hard ideological right, and wants to reestablish the Russian empire.
This example is unsatisfactory for two reasons.
1. My question was about y’all’s statement: “…some on the right certainly do advocate for greater inequality…” Reestablishing the Russian empire is not equivalent.
2. It is obvious from a cursory reading of this thread that the ideological positioning of Mr. Dugin, with respect to left-vs.-right, is subject to dispute. To prove y’all’s point, shouldn’t y’all be picking someone whose positioning is undisputed? Seems that way to me.
Unless y’all can make a better show of it, I’ll have to take it as the final answer that y’all have no example to offer here, and have been simply talking out y’all’s asses on this thing.
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2014 @ 19:24It is obvious from a cursory reading of this thread that the ideological positioning of Mr. Dugin, with respect to left-vs.-right, is subject to dispute.
It’s actually much worse than that. It’s a catch-22. Dugin calls himself a Bolshevik. If we believe him, then “common usage” is wrong — he’s on the left, not the right. If we don’t believe him, then “common usage” is worthless, since we’re skipping over his stated beliefs, policies, and actions, and just slapping our preferred label on him. Which, as the Cuttlefish themselves have pointed out, is an example of the No True Scotsman informal fallacy.
All of which is silly anyway, because as Captain Midnight has pointed out so eloquently, one can be to the left of center on X issue and to the right of center on issue Y. If I thought it would help, I’d get on MS Draw or something and make a Venn diagram — the shaded area of overlap between circles A (“Policies that Tend to Limit Freedom”), B (“Policies that Tend to Increase the Size of Government”), and C (“Policies that Tend to be Advocated by American Liberals in This, AD 2014”) is rather large — but not total. While the shaded area of overlap between circles A, B, and C1 (“Policies that Tend to be Advocated by American Conservatives in This, AD 2014”) tends to be much, much smaller — though there is some. Call it the new new hotness.
Or, you know, we can just keep calling George W. Bush a fascist, because it gives us a nice warm fuzzy in our otherwise bleak and loveless lives. Which is the only real point of the old and busted scale the Cuttlefish love so much.
- Severian | 03/13/2014 @ 20:41I think the message they’re missing is the same as the one they’re always missing: “Your policies suck.”
There are these odious policies that are intended to make everyone equal, like: Higher taxes on the wealthy, and government monopoly on guns. All the people on the right I know personally, far from being enthused about inequality, are simply blessed with the ability to see some meaningful detail that eludes the enthused left. In the case of taxing the wealthy, it’s — whoops, you forgot to tax the wealthy liberals. And in the case of gun control it’s the same, all the liberal-superstar politicians have a special exemption. Both of which mean: Policies intended to produce greater equality, produce the opposite, a caste system.
I can’t think of a single pundit or advocate “on the right” who has advocated for greater inequality. Ever. I can think of quite a few who have opposed leftist policies, but that is by definition. And quite a different thing.
I asked for an example, got one back, and it’s proven to be wholly inadequate in at least two ways. I don’t think there are any better examples out there, anywhere. Could be wrong. But I don’t think so.
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2014 @ 20:57I don’t think so either.
As always, the left fails to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. You can only get the latter by ruthless suppression of the former. But if you ease up on that — if you quit using the power of the state to enforce your preferred outcomes — you will, by definition, “increase inequality.”
If we were to pass a law mandating that vertically-challenged Persons of Pallor with no measurable leaping ability should be represented on NBA rosters proportional to their prevalence in the general population, then — and only then — I might get to play for the Lakers. I would be “equal” to Kobe Bryant in that sense, that we’re both professional basketball players for the Lakers. But if you repealed that stupid law, I’d get cut from the team in a heartbeat. Which would increase my inequality vis-a-vis Kobe.
So, yeah, in that specific, utterly retarded sense, advocating the repeal of the Short Non-Jumping White Guys Professional Basketball Participation Act of 2015 would be “advocating greater inequality.”
Which I suppose suffices for logic down there in the aquarium.
- Severian | 03/13/2014 @ 21:15And don’t call bossy girls bossy! Otherwise they might not mature into the “natural leaders” they
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2014 @ 21:19truly areare supposed to be according to the script.Yup. Or, you know, we might be reminded that Hillary Clinton really is an awful human being. And she so deserves to be president, what with her many accomplishments and all. Steve Sailer absolutely nailed this one — PC is a war on noticing.
- Severian | 03/13/2014 @ 21:36mkfreeberg: Reestablishing the Russian empire is not equivalent.
Empire implies hegemony.
mkfreeberg: It is obvious from a cursory reading of this thread that the ideological positioning of Mr. Dugin, with respect to left-vs.-right, is subject to dispute.
There’s little dispute outside your enclave. There are thousands of references to Dugin as right-wing, conservative, and anti-liberal. Dugin himself talks of a conservative revolution to overthrow modernity and a return to Russian glory.
Severian: Captain Midnight has pointed out so eloquently, one can be to the left of center on X issue and to the right of center on issue Y.
That is correct. However, nearly everyone, including Dugin himself, places him on the political right.
Severian: we can just keep calling George W. Bush a fascist
George W. Bush is not a fascist.
mkfreeberg: I can’t think of a single pundit or advocate “on the right” who has advocated for greater inequality.
The extreme right certainly does advocate for greater inequality. The moderate right merely sees inequality as the consequence of natural differences.
Severian: As always, the left fails to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
Most on the left understand the distinction. That’s why those on the moderate left will advocate for equality of educational opportunity and a social safety net, but want to maintain a robust market sector.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2014 @ 07:13The extreme right certainly does advocate for greater inequality
Well, there’s your citation for you.
So we see that y’all’s legendary reading comprehension extends to y’all’s own bullshit, even within the same thread.
Holy Christ you’re dumb.
- Severian | 03/14/2014 @ 07:36Z: The left advocates greater equality, while the right stands for preserving or recovering traditional institutions.
And this definition is why the old and busted model is teh suck because the two opposite poles are not opposite to each other. It is possible for someone to be both advocating for greater equality while simultaneously standing for recovering traditional institutions. It is also possible for someone to be neither — advocating greater inequality and also trashing traditional institutions.
- Captain Midnight | 03/14/2014 @ 09:16And this definition is why the old and busted model is teh suck because the two opposite poles are not opposite to each other.
Which is why I’m so befuddled by all this. Not that the Cuttlefish don’t get it — they’re shameless partisan hacks, and they’re retarded — but why anyone else could possibly consider the “What Your Teacher Told You” chart as describing anything meaningful.
Equality of what? And for whom?
A Pope trying to revive Unam Sanctam is both “advocating greater equality” and “attempting to recover traditional institutions.” You don’t get much more equal than “all equally subject to the Catholic Church,” especially when the target of the bull is…ahem… a King of France. Meanwhile, the attempt to cram a Shannon Faulkner into the Citadel both advocates greater inequality — ask all the cadets who now have to take separate showers, not to mention the cadet who got his admission pulled to admit her — and trashes a traditional institution. Indeed, trashing a traditional institution was the whole point of that fun little exercise.
In both cases, greater equality for some — Philip the Fair, Shannon Faulkner — results in a shitload more inequality for others (Pope Boniface, the rest of the cadets at the Citadel). Is Shannon Faulkner “hard right” for wanting to get into the Citadel? Was Pope Boniface a leftist for wanting to humble the King of France?
The whole deal is just so, so silly….
..unless the point is for pathetic lefties to get their pwecious widdle feewings validated, in which case it makes perfect sense.
- Severian | 03/14/2014 @ 09:31Severian: unless the point is for pathetic lefties to get their pwecious widdle feewings validated, in which case it makes perfect sense.
Bingo! It makes perfect sense when viewed that way.
- Captain Midnight | 03/14/2014 @ 12:37Severian: Well, there’s your citation for you. Z: He is widely considered to be on the hard ideological right, and wants to reestablish the Russian empire.
But that’s not what you quoted, which was “conservatives advocate for greater inequality.” Not only does your link not include what’s between the quotes, but conservatism is not equivalent to hard ideological right.
Captain Midnight: It is possible for someone to be both advocating for greater equality while simultaneously standing for recovering traditional institutions.
Perhaps in another world, but in this world, the struggle for social equality has meant changing social institutions.
Severian: A Pope trying to revive Unam Sanctam is both “advocating greater equality” and “attempting to recover traditional institutions.”
Advocating everyone must be under the hierarchy of the Church is hardly egalitarianism. Indeed, reform of the Church was one of the great reforms that led to the modern era. “Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own.“
- Zachriel | 03/14/2014 @ 13:16But that’s not what you quoted
Hmmmm….nope, I think it’s y’all’s fantastic reading comprehension acting up again. But then again, how can we be sure? Is y’all’s reading comprehension so shitty that you can’t comprehend statements about the shittiness of you reading comprehension?
It’s like a Zen koan for learning-impaired monks.
- Severian | 03/14/2014 @ 13:46Captain Midnight: It is possible for someone to be both advocating for greater equality while simultaneously standing for recovering traditional institutions.
Z: Perhaps in another world, but in this world, the struggle for social equality has meant changing social institutions.
I see. In this world, the arrow of increasing social equality always points away from older social institutions because Zachriel says so. It follows that every newer social institution must therefore be better for people and their equality than the old one because, again, Zachriel says so. This explains the increased social equality the people enjoyed under the new Nazi institution of Germany. And this explains why reverting back to the traditional institution of a free republic after the fall of Hitler was universally recognized as a step back in social equality.
The German people enjoyed greater equality after Hitler when they recovered the traditional institution of a free republic, but that happened in another world. For thus spake Zachriel.
- Captain Midnight | 03/14/2014 @ 15:14The extreme right certainly does advocate for greater inequality.
If y’all say so…but I’ve asked for examples, and all I got back was this Dugin character, whose ideology is disputed. And rather than come up with some better examples, all I see y’all doing is digging the hole deeper and doubling down, posting these absurd “passive voice” reinforcements — arguments which depend, completely, on what some purportedly great number of (entirely unnamed) other people think.
Captain Midnight: In this world, the arrow of increasing social equality always points away from older social institutions because Zachriel says so.
No, not because we say so, but because that is the trend since the Renaissance. The trend has never been monotonic, or inevitable. Historically, it meant the end of the Church’s control over matters of conscience, then the political power of the aristocracy was overthrown, the end of slavery, universal suffrage, literacy and economic power becoming more widespread, and now a nascent international system where even the poorest nations have some, albeit limited, voice in world matters.
Captain Midnight: It follows that every newer social institution must therefore be better for people and their equality than the old one
Not at all. A valid conservative argument is that too rapid of change can lead to unintended consequences, events can spiral out of control, and the valuable aspect of traditional relations can be lost with the bad.
Captain Midnight: This explains the increased social equality the people enjoyed under the new Nazi institution of Germany.
As we said, the trend has never been monotonic, or inevitable.
Nazism was anti-egalitarian, anti-liberal, with all power vested in a single leader, and some races preferred while others set for extermination.
mkfreeberg: all I got back was this Dugin character, whose ideology is disputed.
It’s not reasonably disputed. Just about everyone acknowledges Dugin is on the political right. Dugin *says* he is on the political right, and explicitly advocates Russian hegemony.
mkfreeberg: but I’ve asked for examples
The KKK is on the far political right, with white supremacy and xenophobia at the core of their political philosophy.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2014 @ 19:24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
It’s not reasonably disputed. Just about everyone acknowledges…
It’s reasonably disputed. Numbers don’t make reason. And “just about everyone” isn’t a number, anyway, it’s more of a…let’s just call it an exclamation. It’s not an absolute statement or a relative statement. Just noise.
The KKK is on the far political right, with white supremacy and xenophobia at the core of their political philosophy.
The same way Barack Obama, on the political left, promotes black supremacy.
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2014 @ 19:32Dugin *says* he is on the political right
Sigh. Was that before or after he helped to write the platform of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation?
- Severian | 03/14/2014 @ 22:20Z: that is the trend since the Renaissance.
Oh, it’s a trend and not a hard rule. And here I took your ” Perhaps in another world, but in this world,” as a statement of fact rather than something you just yanked out of your butt to refute my statement that it is possible for someone to be both advocating for greater equality while simultaneously standing for recovering traditional institutions, or neither.
My mistake.
- Captain Midnight | 03/15/2014 @ 06:07mkfreeberg: Numbers don’t make reason.
mkfreeberg: And “just about everyone” isn’t a number, anyway, it’s more of a…let’s just call it an exclamation.
Words are defined by general usage. We’ve provided authoritative lexicographic citations, as well as specific examples of how the terms are used.
mkfreeberg: The same way Barack Obama, on the political left, promotes black supremacy.
Heh. Funny. You’re aping the KKK to make a point. An African American gets elected president, and “they” take over the government!
Had me going there for a while!
- Zachriel | 03/15/2014 @ 06:12Captain Midnight: Oh, it’s a trend and not a hard rule.
That’s right.
Captain Midnight: Perhaps in another world, but in this world,” as a statement of fact
Historically, traditional institutions have had to change in order for egalitarianism to prevail. You may or may not think that’s a good thing, though. George III certainly did not. We will revisit your statement though.
Captain Midnight: It is possible for someone to be both advocating for greater equality while simultaneously standing for recovering traditional institutions.
We misread your meaning. It is certainly possible that recovering traditional institutions may mean greater equality, even though over the long stretch of time those traditional institutions have had to bend in order to accommodate greater equality.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2014 @ 06:19Z: It is certainly possible that recovering traditional institutions may mean greater equality, even though over the long stretch of time those traditional institutions have had to bend in order to accommodate greater equality.
It’s a matter of where you are on the spectrum. A moderate reformer, on the political left, nonetheless, is to the right of a leftist revolutionary.
An example might suffice. During the French Revolutionary period, there were those who wanted to preserve the monarchy as it was (hard right), reform the monarchy (moderate right), overthrow the monarchy and replace it with a republic (left), overthrow everything and start over (hard left). When the Revolution spiraled out of control, many of those on the political left wanted to return to some normalcy, believing that institutions should be changed or dispensed with more gradually. That would mean returning some traditional institutions to their previous state to begin that process of reform.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2014 @ 06:33We’ve provided authoritative lexicographic citations, as well as specific examples of how the terms are used.
And, to keep the bovine fecal matter flowing down the chute, y’all have been forced to ignore other specific examples.
And therein lies the problem. Y’all have a fine argument going, but it depends on a confusion between ignorance and knowledge; an intransigent insistence on belief that the former is the latter.
Heh. Funny. You’re aping the KKK to make a point. An African American gets elected president, and “they” take over the government!
Had me going there for a while!
I thought y’all were a “we.” What happened?
We’ve been down the road before with this “greater equality” business. Y’all’s — your — argument dissolved into a shapeless puddle of insanity-goo, once it was found to depend, utterly and completely, on an impossibility: that treating people equally is the same as treating people unequally.
What happens to your “trend since the Renaissance” then? We have people in the 1200’s getting in to power and discriminating, maneuvering to ensure their-kind have greater power and the-other-kind has lesser power. In 2014, we have the same thing. Charlatans claim to be speaking for “everybody,” while at the very same time saying “I don’t want to hear any talking” out of the undesirables, who are not their constituency.
So you say there’s a linear trend here somewhere? Can you define what it is, without selectively stenciling out the examples from real life that happen to be inconvenient to it?
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2014 @ 07:11mkfreeberg: that treating people equally is the same as treating people unequally.
Helping to provide a more equal opportunity for the disadvantaged is inequality to you.
You showed your true face. A black was elected president, and “they” are taking over the government.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2014 @ 07:24Uh, so your point is that there are still a lot of white people at the table…after five centuries of this linear-trend? So to achieve total equality is going to take some 4,000 more years of this trend?
And, you just showed your true face. This is about the drama, the “we’re better than you” — not about results. And, anyone who’s been paying attention, over the age of 35, knows it’s been going around in circles. So much for the linear trend.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2014 @ 07:36mkfreeberg: Uh, so your point is that there are still a lot of white people at the table…after five centuries of this linear-trend?
You said Obama was a black supremacist. Must be his family background.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2014 @ 07:42http://whiteswillwinparty.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/obama-with-mother-grandfather-e1.jpg
He is treating people unequally based on skin color, is He not? Yes or no.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2014 @ 07:43mkfreeberg: He is treating people unequally based on skin color, is He not? Yes or no.
Sure. Helping disadvantaged minorities is intended to help create a more equal society.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2014 @ 07:56One black guy and one woman at the table after 500 years?
If I made that kind of progress at work, I’d be fired for sure.
So let’s see. Y’all, or you, are trying to define this as a “linear trend.” You’ve succeeded only in defining it as a circular effort, one that doesn’t produce linear progress and isn’t even that concerned with trying to keep up the illusion. Then you went and tried to slime me, thus proving the truth Mr. Sailer’s statement that PC is a “war on noticing.” Finally, you confirmed my recollection that your argument is insane — to keep it propped up, we have to pretend opposites are identical, that treating people unequally is what you have in mind when you use the term “greater equality.”
severian is right, you do suck at this. Hard enough to take the chrome off a trailer hitch, as bubba might say.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2014 @ 08:07Helping disadvantaged minorities is intended to help create a more equal society.
Wheeee!!!
I don’t know why y’all* are so worried about global warming, Just hook a turbine up to your endlessly circular “reasoning,” and we’ve got all the clean energy the world will ever need.
*or is it “you” now? Would it kill y’all to indicate when one retard tags out and another straps on the special keyboarding helmet? I’ve been assuming that Obtusebot 5000, Cap’n Your-a-Racist, and Dictionary Man are three different idiots, but now I’m not so sure. It might help at least one of you to learn something if that particular individual followed a comment for more than the first sentence of every few posts.
- Severian | 03/15/2014 @ 08:11Severian: Wheeee!!!
You don’t seem to be making a coherent point.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2014 @ 08:21How would you know?
- Severian | 03/15/2014 @ 09:15Captain Midnight: Oh, it’s a trend and not a hard rule.
Z: That’s right.
Now that you have acknowledge that I was correct, let’s go back to the original statement: the Left/Right scale that you love just plain sucks because the opposite ends of the spectrum are not opposite to each other. It is possible for someone to be both advocating for greater equality while simultaneously standing for recovering traditional institutions. It is also possible for someone to be neither — advocating greater inequality and also trashing traditional institutions.
Your beloved Left/Right scale succeeds wonderfully at spreading confusion. Just like the Richter scale and the Magnitude scale, your cherished Left/Right scale has problems and limitations that are not present in the new hotness. And yet you cling bitterly to the old and busted.
Since you won’t embrace the new hotness, you are left with embracing the suck.
- Captain Midnight | 03/17/2014 @ 10:52Captain Midnight: the Left/Right scale that you love just plain sucks because the opposite ends of the spectrum are not opposite to each other.
It’s a continuum. Hence, a moderate reformer while on the left generally, is on the right of a radical reformer. A moderate reformer might want to roll back some of the worst excesses of radical reform. That doesn’t make the spectrum inconsistent.
On the other hand, these sorts of divisions are only capable of representing some aspects of political positions. People will be on different points of the spectrum on different issues. Someone considered to be on the far right might advocate socialism for the super-race, equality for the in-group, while advocating enslaving everyone else.
Captain Midnight: Your beloved Left/Right scale …
It has nothing to do with attachment. It’s just how people generally use the terms.
Captain Midnight: your cherished Left/Right scale has problems and limitations that are not present in the new hotness.
As we said, there’s nothing wrong with considering politics on the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2014 @ 11:00Z: It’s a continuum.
You continue to ignore that it is a sucky continuum because the ends are not opposites. It’s like having a gauge that goes from Empty to Cream Cheese or one that goes from Laughter to Light Speed. It is possible for someone to be both advocating for greater equality while simultaneously standing for recovering traditional institutions. It is also possible for someone to be neither — advocating greater inequality and also trashing traditional institutions. And so as a continuum, it sucks.
Z: As we said, there’s nothing wrong with considering politics on the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum.
On the one hand there is the new hotness with nothing wrong, and on the other hand there is the old and busted that has inherent flaws. It is clear that you have embraced the old and busted because it is the scale you prefer to use in all your discussions.
Since you won’t embrace the new hotness, you are left with embracing the suck.
- Captain Midnight | 03/18/2014 @ 09:03Captain Midnight: You continue to ignore that it is a sucky continuum because the ends are not opposites.
It’s not a perfect spectrum, but works in the vast majority of cases, as we explained above.
Captain Midnight: It is possible for someone to be both advocating for greater equality while simultaneously standing for recovering traditional institutions.
We addressed that above. Someone on the moderate left who wants more gradual reform is to the right of someone on the radical left. Similarly, a moderate conservative who wants some reform is the left of someone on the radical right. The terms are used with little ambiguity by most people.
Captain Midnight: On the one hand there is the new hotness with nothing wrong
As we said, there is nothing wrong with discussing the less government – more government spectrum, which is orthogonal to the conventional left-right spectrum.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2014 @ 09:20http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png
And so we see that you embrace the suck. I get it. I really do.
- Captain Midnight | 03/18/2014 @ 09:25