War Room Lounge v63

[senri]

Trix, fruity pebbles, fruit loops, any fruit flavored cereal like that is absolute garbage

What is your preferred sustenance you usually desires to ingest deep inside you Miss. Sara?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Tl;dr for the tl;dr:
He made up his own bullshit definitions for left and right

You can always argue the points if you don't agree with them.

 

[Ruprecht]

You can always argue the points if you don't agree with them.

Words have meanings. The definition of right-wing and left-wing were set out a long time ago, and not by Americans.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Words have meanings. The definition of right-wing and left-wing were set out a long time ago, and not by Americans.

Again if you want to argue the points go ahead. Tell me where i went wrong.

 

[Ruprecht]

Again if you want to argue the points go ahead. Tell me where i went wrong.

You made up your own definitions. You know what the historical definitions are.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

You made up your own definitions. You know what the historical definitions are.

Thats incorrect. My opinons are not isolated in a sea of people but rather common knowledge at this point. Go into my post and argue specific parts if you disagree and we will see if and where i went wrong according to you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Could you make a case that any of those papers is biased in favour of Bernie, do you think?

Note that I don't think that it's a good case either way, and it's not one I'd feel good about making. But following the rules of the author, yes, I feel pretty sure I could. I did legitimately think that in 2016, Bernie's coverage tended to be a little unreasonably positive, though one could make the case that he wasn't taken sufficiently seriously (those two points actually go together--candidates who aren't seen as having a good chance tend to get favorable coverage unless and until that changes).

 

[Prokofievian]

Note that I don't think that it's a good case either way, and it's not one I'd feel good about making. But following the rules of the author, yes, I feel pretty sure I could. I did legitimately think that in 2016, Bernie's coverage tended to be a little unreasonably positive, though one could make the case that he wasn't taken sufficiently seriously (those two points actually go together--candidates who aren't seen as having a good chance tend to get favorable coverage unless and until that changes).

How do you mean unreasonably positive? Just for example.

 

[Sara]

What is your preferred sustenance you usually desires to ingest deep inside you Miss. Sara?

I don't normally eat in the AM cause it just makes me nauseated if I do have cereal it's honey nut cheerios.

 

[Ruprecht]

Thats incorrect. My opinons are not isolated in a sea of people but rather common knowledge at this point. Go into my post and argue specific parts if you disagree and we will see if and where i went wrong according to you.

Nonsense. Everyone uses the established definitions, not just your definition of "left-wingers" as a product of local American politics in this era.
Right-wing as supporting the existence of/established hierarchies and the left-wing which opposes them.
As originally defined by the support for monarchy and clericalism.
That's why the introduction of the welfare state by Bismarck was right-wing politics, because it's intention was to preserve the hierarchical privilege of the landed aristocracy.
It's why in the US the Dominionists are far right, because they want a reactionary return to religious hierarchy, even though that never existed in the US and would be a massive expansion of the state. No-one with any intellectual integrity would call Dutch Sheets "left-wing".

 

[Fawlty]

When your country has trials by public juries making judgments based on reasonable doubt, and the public becomes overly cynical or conspiracy oriented, your system erodes because the public's ability to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable doubt is compromised.

 

[HockeyBjj]

What'd I miss? Who got banned?

Or just another rip warrior reincarnation?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Nonsense. Everyone uses the established definitions, not just your definition of "left-wingers" as a product of local American politics in this era.
Right-wing as supporting the existence of/established hierarchies and the left-wing which opposes them.
As originally defined by the support for monarchy and clericalism.
That's why the introduction of the welfare state by Bismark was right-wing politics, because it's intention was to preserve the hierarchical privilege of the landed aristocracy.
It's why in the US the Dominionists are far right, because they want a reactionary return to religious hierarchy, even though that never existed in the US and would be a massive expansion of the state. No-one with any intellectual integrity would call Dutch Sheets "left-wing".

The American Right is about breaking away from the the status quo at the time which was to maintain the monarchy as well as a separation of both church and state. You are out of touch with the time you are currently living in if you think limited government loving, individualistic classical liberals from America want a reinstatement of the very institution they initially broke away from.

Your logic makes absolutely no sense here. Im not sure you read my post because if you did i already cleared up a lot of whats in this post.

Also it would be awesome if you could explain to me how dominionists and anarcho-capitalists are both far right with this sort of world view. I would love to see that explanation unravel.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Quasi random thought of the day:

Marianne Williamson reminds me of Michael Jackson (late stage).

 

[HereticBD]

When your country has trials by public juries making judgments based on reasonable doubt, and the public becomes overly cynical or conspiracy oriented, your system erodes because the public's ability to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable doubt is compromised.

When your country has trials by public juries, that are selected at random and requires no educational background in law(or at all, really) to become a member, your system is already fucked.

 

[Ruprecht]

The American Right is about breaking away from the the status quo at the time which was to maintain the monarchy as well as a separation of both church and state. You are out of touch with the time you are currently living in if you think limited government loving, individualistic classical liberals from America want a reinstatement of the very institution they initially broke away from.

Your logic makes absolutely no sense here. Im not sure you read my post because if you did i already cleared up a lot of whats in this post.

Also it would be awesome if you could explain to me how dominionists and anarcho-capitalists are both far right with this sort of world view. I would love to see that explanation unravel.

No, all your post did was make up definitions for words by referencing a selection of current issues within American politics and characterising them as definitive. It didn't look at the historical meaning of the term and how that applies to current and historical examples.
Like I said, dominionists are far right because they want to establish religious hierarchy. Are you honestly going to argue that dominionists are "left-wing". Do you think they consider themselves "left-wing"? Do you think that they participate in the institutions and alliances of "left-wing" politics? If so that says it all about your argument. No one with a shred of intellectual honesty would agree.
You're confusing the means with the ends. Both dominionists and anarcho-capitalists seek to establish what they consider natural or "correct" hierarchy, they just have different opinions on how to get there.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree with your first paragraph insofar as that European politics in general has a much more collectivist approach in dealing with inequity through out society and their is a level of statism required to correct for that. Through all the fluff though, this is just a long-winded way of saying "more government".

Only if you're using a very specific, I think misleading, definition of "more government." I think that to cram support for increased inequality and stronger hierarchy into the more-popular "small gov't" rubric, some define the size of gov't in terms of the degree to which it favors owners over workers and rich over poor. The way I see it, gov't is maximally large once it recognizes and enforces property claims over the entire territory.

At it's core the European left-right paradigm is shifted heavily to the left no matter where one find themselves on it for this exact reason. Right wingers in europe correct for societal inequities (to the best of their ability) at the behest of government. This is absolutely antithetical to the individualistic, anti-statist approach prescribed by American Rightism (Classical Liberalism) that is rooted in Lockean and Smithian thought. In a nut shell, European right wingers are closer to American left wingers and that is common knowledge today. Again this is separated by two core principals.

Smith would be considered on the far left by the American right if people actually read him. Locke said this (brought to my attention by the best right-wing libertarian thinker):

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

Essentially saying that private property is justified as long as there is still enough unowned land for anyone and of equal quality. Obviously that's not the case now, and that's why we look into not eliminating private property (which leads to better use of it) but to compensating people who can no longer just take over a plot.

Also, no, the right in other countries is still right-wing in the sense of supporting stronger hierarchies and opposing equality. Statism is a non-issue, as there are statists on the right and left and anti-statists (very few) on the right and left.

Your second paragraph is rather misleading. There is no consistent philosophy between conservatives other than the fact that they don't like change.

I laid out why they don't like change and then went into more details on the specifics of the conservative movement in America. Conservatism is a very collectivistic ideology (most ideologies are collectivistic, actually--liberalism is an exception). Again, the reason that they don't like change is that they are more confident in the wisdom embedded in tradition--the kind of social hive mind--than they are in individual reason.

It is undeniable that today, no matter where we are in the world, thie left-right paradigm is dictated by statism since the inception of America and it's not revisionist history to claim this.

It is, though. The right referred initially to monarchy and aristocracy. Liberals (the original left) have promoted equal rights and a society of laws. America was founded by liberals, and it has a liberal constitution, so there are have been liberal influences all over.

The idea here is that the spectrum has absolutely been broadened since the inception of the American constitution. Left wingers will see it differently how ever and say that the paradigm is about "equality" which isn't incorrect historically because statism was never the defining factor between left or right nor was collectivism vs individualism.

It's not just left-wingers who say that. That's what the words mean.

The level of statism is the same and the level of collectivism is the same with the minor distinction of who it applied to in Nazi Germany. This simply isn't the case in America and it would be odd to assert that Classical Liberalism is in any way shape or form like Nazism when they are diametrically opposed to one another.

Liberalism of any kind of very different from Nazism, but Nazism is a radical right-wing ideology.

Equality/Liberty and how you achieve it are different depending on who you are asking. To the philosophical underpinnings of American Rightism/Classical Liberalism, it is achieved though a constitution that is egalitarian in nature, that applies to every citizen but this does not correct for INEQUITY which to a left winger is an obstacle for true liberty.

To some extent, yes. But within liberalism, there are disputes about how meaningful nominally equal rights are when laws are enforced unequally because of huge power imbalances and when the laws withhold access to the means of survival from most of the population. There are right-leaning liberals and left-leaning liberals, but the right in America is increasingly not liberal at all, which pushes right-leaning liberals away from the movement.

Right wingers care more for equal opportunity rather than equal outcome but this means nothing for the right-left paradigm because at the end of the day authoritarianism or collectivism of any sort stands in opposition to their individualistic approach to governance.

What practical proposals have you seen in the past decade from the right to increase equal opportunity? I think it's more accurate to say that the mainstream right opposes equal opportunity, and the mainstream left supports somewhat improving equality of opportunity.

In europe far rightism is Nazism, in America It's anarcho-capitalism. Are they both inequitable? Yes. Do this make them the same? Absolutely not. To assert otherwise is a very odd.

They're not the same, but "anarcho-capitalism" (a contradiction, as capitalism requires a strong state) entails decentralized dictatorships, which puts it on a similar position as more centralized dictatorships.

Your last paragraph is interesting because you separate American conservatism from American rightism which is misleading since they are inseparable.

They are separate. Trump is not conservative in the sense that the term has been used. Neither are Christian Dominionists. They are both very far right, though.

Now Monarchism (The rule of one) is decidedly left wing in America because it stands in opposition to their status quo.

It opposes the status quo from the right. There's nothing at all left-wing about monarchism.

TL/DR (for anyone who doesn't want to sift through this but wants in on the fun)

-The political spectrum is not defined by equality/inequity but collectivism vs individualism and statism vs collectivism
-Left = collectivism/statism, Right = individualism/Anti-statism to varying degrees.
-Historically Status quo in Europe(right wingers in europe) = upholding the monarchy, status quo in America = upholding Classic liberalism
-Trump Is closer to European conservatism as American Hegonomy increases.
-Conservatism is not a philosophy but is about maintaining the status quo which is relative to the time and place we live.

Let me know if i missed anything. Looking forward to your response and having everyone flip shit in this thread. Be kind to my english it's my second language.

My own summarized response:

1. It is defined by inequality/equality and not by collectivism/individualism.
2. Incorrect (explained).
3. The right in America isn't even upholding the status quo.
4. Conservatism is a philosophy that involves maintaining the status quo because of skepticism of reason.

I think you got it all, and I hope the response was what you were looking for. Your English is excellent.

 

[all caps]

Quasi random thought of the day:

Marianne Williamson reminds me of Michael Jackson (late stage).

I'm not sure how. Michael spoke nothing but the truth.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How do you mean unreasonably positive? Just for example.

I don't remember examples, and don't think that's the way to go. Here's a look at the overall tone of coverage, though:

https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/#_ftnref22

Bernie:

Clinton:

Of course that doesn't necessarily answer whether it was reasonable or not that he was covered so much more positively, but given that he lost by a big margin, I think we'd expect that there would be more negatively toned stories.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

No, all your post did was make up definitions for words by referencing a selection of current issues within American politics and characterising them as definitive. It didn't look at the historical meaning of the term and how that applies to current and historical examples.
Like I said, dominionists are far right because they want to establish religious hierarchy. Are you honestly going to argue that dominionists are "left-wing". Do you think they consider themselves "left-wing"? Do you think that they participate in the institutions and alliances of "left-wing" politics? If so that says it all about your argument. No one with a shred of intellectual honesty would agree.
You're confusing the means with the ends. Both dominionists and anarcho-capitalists seek to establish what they consider natural or "correct" hierarchy, they just have different opinions on how to get there.

You go on about how i've made up terms without you actually defining them nor qualifying your own positions with out making a plea for the collective consensus which i flat out reject. The over simplification of what i wrote is a testament that you didn't read a word i wrote. Again if you want to argue specific points rather than what you are currently doing "YOU MADE SHIT UP" then im all for it, other wise i'll continue the dialogue with someone who actually adds to the discourse.

In other words don't tell me im wrong. Just tell me WHY im wrong and we can actually proceed. Until then you are just running in circles.

Both dominionists and anarcho-capitalists seek to establish what they consider natural or "correct" hierarchy, they just have different opinions on how to get there.

These two camps are diametrically opposed to one another but you foolishly lump them together. You are saying that people who want to re-institute a common and central authority are somehow the same as people calling for a stateless society, further adding insult to injury you somehow lump classical liberals who broke away from the very institution you are claiming they want to reinstate even though one of the central tenants is separation of church and state. This is WHY you are wrong.

Before indicting anyone else of not understanding the definitions, history or objective reality that surrounds these terms, perhaps make sure you have a firm grasp of it yourself which you clearly do not.

@Jack V Savage Perfectly reasonable response. Of course i do disagree with several areas but I'll get back to you shortly. Thank you.