Poll
Question:
On a scale of 1 to 10, how far right would you place yourself?
Option 1: 1
votes: 4
Option 2: 2
votes: 4
Option 3: 3
votes: 9
Option 4: 4
votes: 8
Option 5: 5
votes: 8
Option 6: 6
votes: 7
Option 7: 7
votes: 9
Option 8: 8
votes: 3
Option 9: 9
votes: 1
Option 10: 10
votes: 3
It is purely down to your own judgement of course, thus we may well get Siege (by my scale a 12) seeing himself as a centrist, but in our own self-identification, from 1 on the far left to 10 on the far right, it would be interesting to see how we place ourselves.
1. Opinions have differed.
It's interesting that you label a question about where a person falls on the left/right spectrum as degree of "far right."
I answered 7.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 03:11:11 PM
It's interesting that you label a question about where a person falls on the left/right spectrum as degree of "far right."
I answered 7.
It could equally be how far left are you. But numbers go from left to right so...this seems more logical.
About a 4, with the usual caveat that I think trying to plot most political positions along a single axis is absurd.
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2015, 03:12:44 PM
It could equally be how far left are you. But numbers go from left to right so...this seems more logical.
:hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2015, 03:12:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 03:11:11 PM
It's interesting that you label a question about where a person falls on the left/right spectrum as degree of "far right."
I answered 7.
It could equally be how far left are you. But numbers go from left to right so...this seems more logical.
It seems like it would make more sense to have it be bipolar (with 1 being very left and 10 as very right). Otherwise, anyone who considers themselves on the left will be 1 (which I assume is not at all on the right).
I think he meant 5 to be considered the center.
QuoteIt seems like it would make more sense to have it be bipolar (with 1 being very left and 10 as very right). Otherwise, anyone who considers themselves on the left will be 1 (which I assume is not at all on the right).
Could also work.
Though current best practice for polling as I understand it is a single scale.
Not important either way. I trust you all got what I mean.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 14, 2015, 03:27:45 PM
I think he meant 5 to be considered the center.
No cop-outs alowed :p
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 14, 2015, 03:27:45 PM
I think he meant 5 to be considered the center.
That wouldn't make sense as 5 is not a center point on a 10 point scale. It is slightly in the direction of whatever 1 is.
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2015, 03:29:43 PM
QuoteIt seems like it would make more sense to have it be bipolar (with 1 being very left and 10 as very right). Otherwise, anyone who considers themselves on the left will be 1 (which I assume is not at all on the right).
Could also work.
Though current best practice for polling as I understand it is a single scale.
Not important either way. I trust you all got what I mean.
A bipolar scale is a single scale, it just goes in two directions. :P
Also, no I'm not sure. Is 1 supposed to be not at all right?
He said 1 is far left. Stop being such a bitch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 03:42:56 PM
He said 1 is far left. Stop being such a bitch.
That's a big ask.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 03:42:56 PM
He said 1 is far left. Stop being such a bitch.
Somehow I completely missed that first post. :blush:
Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2015, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 03:42:56 PM
He said 1 is far left. Stop being such a bitch.
That's a big ask.
A pointless one, I would think. What am I if not bitchy? :weep:
If you prick garbon, does he not bitch?
5 is left, 6 is right. Easy.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 14, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
If you prick garbon, does he not bitch?
I'd probably just be confused. :hmm:
6, center right. I would have been purged in the purge of the Girondins. Or maybe even the Feuillants.
I'm slightly disappoint the opportunity wasn't taken to use a Spinal Tap scale/reference. :(
2. Robespierre did nothing wrong.
I picked 6 as I'm more right/conservative on the fiscal issues and how government spends money, wanting more efficiency, but a lot less so on the social issues where I'm more liberal. In fact, I don't really understand how most of us can differ on more efficiently run government, more accountability and call that politically right or left as most of would probably feel quite similar about a lot of it.
Quote from: KRonn on March 14, 2015, 04:15:55 PM
I picked 6 as I'm more right/conservative on the fiscal issues and how government spends money, wanting more efficiency, but a lot less so on the social issues where I'm more liberal. In fact, I don't really understand how most of us can differ on more efficiently run government, more accountability and call that politically right or left as most of would probably feel quite similar about a lot of it.
"Efficiency" can definitely be a left/right issue, particularly as it relates to public employee pay and benefits.
I'm an 11.
0
3 I guess? Hard to say.
8.
9, but on the Languish scale I'm like 20.
5.
So it's basically a bell curve, except only one person was brave enough to be a boring 5.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 14, 2015, 06:32:12 PM
So it's basically a bell curve, except only one person was brave enough to be a boring 5.
6 is just as boring as five, seeing as how 5.5 is the midpoint of the scale.
666
I'm trying to figure out a calibration...
1: Lenin, Castro
2: Chavez, Morales, Gorbachev
3. Kucinich
4. Obama
5. Clinton, Lieberman
6. Cameron
7. Bush
8. Ashcroft, Santorum
9. Franco
10. Hitler
Quote from: alfred russel on March 14, 2015, 06:52:06 PM
I'm trying to figure out a calibration...
1: Lenin, Castro
2: Chavez, Morales, Gorbachev
3. Kucinich
4. Obama
5. Clinton, Lieberman
6. Cameron
7. Bush
8. Ashcroft, Santorum
9. Franco
10. Hitler
This is reasonable, if deeply debatable, up to 9 and 10. Both Franco and Hitler pursued very statist economic policies. And it's not as if someone who is center-right enjoys wars of conquest and exterminating race enemies, just not quite as much as Hitler did.
Of course, as someone already pointed out it's impossible for a linear scale to encompass all the variation in political opinions.
I voted 3 because the title didn't match the actual question & scale but on the Languish scale I am a -20.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:03:26 PM
This is reasonable, if deeply debatable, up to 9 and 10. Both Franco and Hitler pursued very statist economic policies. And it's not as if someone who is center-right enjoys wars of conquest and exterminating race enemies, just not quite as much as Hitler did.
Of course, as someone already pointed out it's impossible for a linear scale to encompass all the variation in political opinions.
As you mention it isn't so possible to put all political opinions on a linear scale. For example, what counts as far right? It could include a true believer in absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings, a white supremacist, or a hardcore economic libertarian. The three have almost nothing in common.
I think the 10 spot has to go to Hitler though. When you hear of "far right extremist groups", you know the discussion isn't about Milton Friedman disciples. I think most people understands that far right usually includes racism and extreme nationalism, while center right does not.
But the question wasn't about how far right extremist you are. :contract:
And I sincerely doubt that Beeb or any other poster who responded 10 see themselves as Hitler.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:22:19 PM
But the question wasn't about how far right extremist you are. :contract:
And I sincerely doubt that Beeb or any other poster who responded 10 see themselves as Hitler.
That is why I thought it would be good to calibrate a system. :)
I voted 10, as I've never intentionally voted accurately in any Languish or online opinion poll, so this un-calibrated poll was perfect for me. :)
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 14, 2015, 07:06:46 PM
I voted 3 because the title didn't match the actual question & scale but on the Languish scale I am a -20.
Quote from: derspiess9, but on the Languish scale I'm like 20.
Ah, Languish, a bastion for extremists of the opposite stripe as oneself. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:22:19 PMAnd I sincerely doubt that Beeb or any other poster who responded 10 see themselves as Hitler.
Ed does.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 14, 2015, 07:32:31 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 14, 2015, 07:06:46 PM
I voted 3 because the title didn't match the actual question & scale but on the Languish scale I am a -20.
Quote from: derspiess9, but on the Languish scale I'm like 20.
Ah, Languish, a bastion for extremists of the opposite stripe as oneself. :D
They pretty much cancel each other out, the residual is complaints about Argentinians steeling Canadian snow.
1 :)
Quote from: The Larch on March 14, 2015, 07:36:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:22:19 PMAnd I sincerely doubt that Beeb or any other poster who responded 10 see themselves as Hitler.
Ed does.
:blush:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 14, 2015, 07:19:15 PM
I think the 10 spot has to go to Hitler though. When you hear of "far right extremist groups", you know the discussion isn't about Milton Friedman disciples.
I don't know that.
2.
There's no united left. I fall between most chairs.
I'd be hard pushed to see common values between a neo-nazi and a libertarian, though. Except that both are bunk.
Fairly centrist, but my pretty severe case of anti-union (and my belief that government should get out of a few businesses its gotten itself into) probably put me somewhere around a 6 or 7.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:03:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 14, 2015, 06:52:06 PM
I'm trying to figure out a calibration...
1: Lenin, Castro
2: Chavez, Morales, Gorbachev
3. Kucinich
4. Obama
5. Clinton, Lieberman
6. Cameron
7. Bush
8. Ashcroft, Santorum
9. Franco
10. Hitler
This is reasonable, if deeply debatable, up to 9 and 10. Both Franco and Hitler pursued very statist economic policies. And it's not as if someone who is center-right enjoys wars of conquest and exterminating race enemies, just not quite as much as Hitler did.
Of course, as someone already pointed out it's impossible for a linear scale to encompass all the variation in political opinions.
Statism is not exactly a left wing issue. And historically in the US conquest of the West, destruction of the Indians, and holding millions of inferior peoples as slaves tended to be championed by conservatives.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
Statism is not exactly a left wing issue.
That's the problem, no issues are exactly left wing issues. Any position one takes could be derived from a number of different motivations, but charting people on a left/right axis requires arbirtrarily choosing a set of positions to define each side. Generally the more satisfied you are with the set you've defined yourself by, the less satisfied the opposition will be.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
Statism is not exactly a left wing issue.
I'm having a hard time coming up with examples of countries, at any point in history, in which the generally accepted political right favored greater public involvement in the economy than the generally accepted left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 10:01:07 PM
I'm having a hard time coming up with examples of countries, at any point in history, in which the generally accepted political right favored greater public involvement in the economy than the generally accepted left.
I find this very hard to believe. Free trade and laissez faire politics started as a left wing thing. Are the UK and France really that obscure of places?
5. Well, leaning to the Right on fiscal issues but definitely a Leftist on most moral/social issues. In all, I may stand from 3 to 7 depending of the topic.
Quote from: Rex Francorum on March 14, 2015, 11:03:39 PM
5. Well, leaning to the Right on fiscal issues but definitely a Leftist on most moral/social issues. In all, I may stand from 3 to 7 depending of the topic.
Yeah this describes me as well.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2015, 10:28:14 PM
I find this very hard to believe. Free trade and laissez faire politics started as a left wing thing. Are the UK and France really that obscure of places?
Yes. Trade restrictions are the great exception.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:22:19 PM
But the question wasn't about how far right extremist you are. :contract:
And I sincerely doubt that Beeb or any other poster who responded 10 see themselves as Hitler.
:yes:
I always took Burke as the ur-Conservative.
Let's remember Hitler styled himself as a National Socialist. While I concede that doesn't make him a leftist, it doesn't mean he was an arch-Conservative either.
Bismark believed in paternalistic socialism. Continental Europe does not map very well on the Left-Ring things in the English speaking world. Which is why I disagree with Yi's assertion.
Besides Burke was all about preservation of traditional institutions. If those institutions are paternalistic or stifle economic freedom, then Burkean conservatives would support those things no? Or at least their gradual reform.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 10:01:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
Statism is not exactly a left wing issue.
I'm having a hard time coming up with examples of countries, at any point in history, in which the generally accepted political right favored greater public involvement in the economy than the generally accepted left.
US early late 18th century to mid 19th century. Britain in the same time period. Czarist Russia. Qing China.
EDIT: And all the people who promoted the liberal economics of the 18th and 19th century were still "statists". They believed that people should live in states.
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2015, 11:11:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:22:19 PM
But the question wasn't about how far right extremist you are. :contract:
And I sincerely doubt that Beeb or any other poster who responded 10 see themselves as Hitler.
:yes:
I always took Burke as the ur-Conservative.
Let's remember Hitler styled himself as a National Socialist. While I concede that doesn't make him a leftist, it doesn't mean he was an arch-Conservative either.
No, he wasn't a conservative but he was definitely a rightest. His allies were rightist, he drew followers from the right, and well wishers in France, Britain and the US were right wingers.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2015, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2015, 11:11:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:22:19 PM
But the question wasn't about how far right extremist you are. :contract:
And I sincerely doubt that Beeb or any other poster who responded 10 see themselves as Hitler.
:yes:
I always took Burke as the ur-Conservative.
Let's remember Hitler styled himself as a National Socialist. While I concede that doesn't make him a leftist, it doesn't mean he was an arch-Conservative either.
No, he wasn't a conservative but he was definitely a rightest. His allies were rightist, he drew followers from the right, and well wishers in France, Britain and the US were right wingers.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
I conceded Hitler wasn't a leftist.
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2015, 03:06:00 PM
It is purely down to your own judgement of course, thus we may well get Siege (by my scale a 12) seeing himself as a centrist, but in our own self-identification, from 1 on the far left to 10 on the far right, it would be interesting to see how we place ourselves.
6-7 is about it. I'm certainly not a libertarian, definately not a treehugger, much more of a pragmatist if anything. I want things that work, I want equal treatment for all. If you refuse to do your part, you get nothing. If you can't do your part, we should find ways to help you do your part, or worst case scenario, keep you living comfortably.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2015, 11:33:57 PM
US early late 18th century to mid 19th century. Britain in the same time period. Czarist Russia. Qing China.
EDIT: And all the people who promoted the liberal economics of the 18th and 19th century were still "statists". They believed that people should live in states.
Can US politics of that time period be described in left/right terms? Honest question.
Does left/right politics have any meaning in an absolute monarchy like Russia? Less honest question.
A statist is not a person that believes people should live in states.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 11:51:19 PM
Can US politics of that time period be described in left/right terms? Honest question.
Of course. If it cannot then French Revolutionary politics could not either and they invented the whole concept.
QuoteDoes left/right politics have any meaning in an absolute monarchy like Russia? Less honest question.
So the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Bolsheviks were all not leftists just because they existed in an absolute monarchy?
QuoteA statist is not a person that believes people should live in states.
I think he is thinking it is the opposite of anarchist Libertarianism or something.
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2015, 12:06:33 AM
Of course. If it cannot then French Revolutionary politics could not either and they invented the whole concept.
Why is that?
QuoteSo the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Bolsheviks were all not leftists just because they existed in an absolute monarchy?
We were talking about Czarist economic policies. I'm unaware of those groups having much of a role in formulating those policies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2015, 12:14:56 AM
Why is that?
Because this is the era all of our political ideologies come from. Right wing and left wing ideas come about from the American Revolution almost immediately. People advocating equality for all, including women, were there annoying conservative people almost immediately.
QuoteWe were talking about Czarist economic policies.
I thought we were talking about left vs right wing politics.
Ed is so far right, he's popping into the left.
I dunno. 7 maybe?
I consider myself to be left of center. 3.75 or 3.5, maybe?
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2015, 12:57:45 AM
I thought we were talking about left vs right wing politics.
We were talking about rightists pursuing government involvement in the economy. At least I was.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2015, 01:12:19 AM
We were talking about rightists pursuing government involvement in the economy. At least I was.
I have no clue what you are talking about. Bolsheviks are not leftists because they had no role in setting Czarist economic policies? What does that have to do with whether or not Bolsheviks are leftwing?
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2015, 01:54:01 AM
I have no clue what you are talking about. Bolsheviks are not leftists because they had no role in setting Czarist economic policies? What does that have to do with whether or not Bolsheviks are leftwing?
It has nothing at all to do with whether or not Bolsheviks are leftwing. You were the one that brought that into the conversation based on a misunderstanding.
I don't understand the poll. Didn't vote.
Quote from: Norgy on March 14, 2015, 08:16:16 PM
I'd be hard pushed to see common values between a neo-nazi and a libertarian, though. Except that both are bunk.
Given that "libertarian" actually means the exact same thing is "classical liberal," I don't think they'd have any shared values with a neo-Nazi.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 11:51:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2015, 11:33:57 PM
US early late 18th century to mid 19th century. Britain in the same time period. Czarist Russia. Qing China.
EDIT: And all the people who promoted the liberal economics of the 18th and 19th century were still "statists". They believed that people should live in states.
Can US politics of that time period be described in left/right terms? Honest question.
Does left/right politics have any meaning in an absolute monarchy like Russia? Less honest question.
A statist is not a person that believes people should live in states.
First question: Yes. In a sense they were all leftist as they were Whigs and anti-monarchists (the original left) Federalists were more right and the Jeffersonians were more left. The Jacksonian Democrats became the new right and Whigs and later Republicans were then new left.
2nd Question: yes. The Czarist regime was explicitly conservative. Most absolute monarchies were. They had a strong hand in the economy and were often mercantilist.
A statist is a usually a pejorative term used by lunatics against non lunatics. Since I am a lunatic it doesn't work exactly.
Quote from: Syt on March 15, 2015, 12:58:50 AM
Ed is so far right, he's popping into the left.
I'm complicated.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2015, 09:12:13 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 11:51:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2015, 11:33:57 PM
US early late 18th century to mid 19th century. Britain in the same time period. Czarist Russia. Qing China.
EDIT: And all the people who promoted the liberal economics of the 18th and 19th century were still "statists". They believed that people should live in states.
Can US politics of that time period be described in left/right terms? Honest question.
Does left/right politics have any meaning in an absolute monarchy like Russia? Less honest question.
A statist is not a person that believes people should live in states.
First question: Yes. In a sense they were all leftist as they were Whigs and anti-monarchists (the original left) Federalists were more right and the Jeffersonians were more left. The Jacksonian Democrats became the new right and Whigs and later Republicans were then new left.
I agree with most of what you say here, but I can't really see the Jacksonians as rightists. Jackson himself scared the conservatives of his day to death. I would say that by the mid-1840s, the Democratic party had become pretty conservative, but the Whigs weren't necessary the liberals--they were composed of anyone who had disagreed with Jackson, whether they were to the left or right of him (which is one of the reasons the Whigs didn't win but a couple of elections and didn't last all that long).
Quote2nd Question: yes. The Czarist regime was explicitly conservative. Most absolute monarchies were. They had a strong hand in the economy and were often mercantilist.
Agree.
QuoteA statist is a usually a pejorative term used by lunatics against non lunatics. Since I am a lunatic it doesn't work exactly.
Not sure about that. I know for sure that Ide has described himself as a statist.
Quote from: dps on March 15, 2015, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2015, 09:12:13 AM
A statist is a usually a pejorative term used by lunatics against non lunatics. Since I am a lunatic it doesn't work exactly.
Not sure about that. I know for sure that Ide has described himself as a statist.
He didn't say that only lunatics used the term, he just said that when lunatics used it they used it as a pejorative. He'd know.
I don't limit myself to any arbitrary two-dimensional concept, such as "left" or "right". ^_^
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2015, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2015, 11:11:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:22:19 PM
But the question wasn't about how far right extremist you are. :contract:
And I sincerely doubt that Beeb or any other poster who responded 10 see themselves as Hitler.
:yes:
I always took Burke as the ur-Conservative.
Let's remember Hitler styled himself as a National Socialist. While I concede that doesn't make him a leftist, it doesn't mean he was an arch-Conservative either.
No, he wasn't a conservative but he was definitely a rightest. His allies were rightist, he drew followers from the right, and well wishers in France, Britain and the US were right wingers.
But were they considered rightist then? (honest question, cause I've seen both things being claimed)
As for conservative... fasists, communists and national-socialists were all -according to their own propaganda/programme- building new societies. Unlike what came before. Not exactly something one associates with conservatism.
Cause the (extreme-)left in many countries didn't have many problems cooperating with national-socialist Hitler before june 41. And it's not because the NSDAP was an ardent enemy of the communists that they suddenly become the opposite. After all: strife is often fiercest within the same family.
as it is a left-right axis is hardly adequate to explain/clarify where a party or person stands. Too easy to put parties and persons on a point where they don't belong
There's more to be said for Stalin being right wing than Hitler somehow being left.
Quote from: Tyr on March 15, 2015, 03:19:52 PM
There's more to be said for Stalin being right wing than Hitler somehow being left.
:D
:lol:
I'm curious Squeeze; what are the characteristics that you associate with the left and with the right?
:rolleyes:
I didn't say Stalin was right wing. I said there was a better argument for that than the silly argument that often pops up about Hitler being left wing.
Quote from: Tyr on March 15, 2015, 03:56:52 PM
:rolleyes:
I didn't say Stalin was right wing. I said there was a better argument for that than the silly argument that often pops up about Hitler being left wing.
Let's hear it.
Define repressive policies regarding democracy and freedom of speech and the like as "right wing". Done.
Of course, it's completely arbitrary and self-serving and the opposition will disagree.
No one like a kibbitzer Weegro. :glare:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2015, 03:57:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 15, 2015, 03:56:52 PM
:rolleyes:
I didn't say Stalin was right wing. I said there was a better argument for that than the silly argument that often pops up about Hitler being left wing.
Let's hear it.
I can make it. Stalin allied with the Right communists. He passed laws outlawing abortion and promoting family values. He was greatly increased the military and probably killed more Reds and leftists then the US did in Vietnam and Korea combined. Of course it's a nonsense argument. He was a communist and thus a leftist. Just like the Hitler is a leftist argument.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2015, 07:16:08 PM
Just like the Hitler is a leftist argument.
No one has made that argument.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 15, 2015, 01:38:25 PM
But were they considered rightist then? (honest question, cause I've seen both things being claimed)
As for conservative... fasists, communists and national-socialists were all -according to their own propaganda/programme- building new societies. Unlike what came before. Not exactly something one associates with conservatism.
Cause the (extreme-)left in many countries didn't have many problems cooperating with national-socialist Hitler before june 41. And it's not because the NSDAP was an ardent enemy of the communists that they suddenly become the opposite. After all: strife is often fiercest within the same family.
as it is a left-right axis is hardly adequate to explain/clarify where a party or person stands. Too easy to put parties and persons on a point where they don't belong
They were considered rightists then. The Nazis were not conservative (though they allied with the conservatives to get themselves into power), They were reactionary (though in their own words they claimed to transcend political ideology). The extreme left did have a hard time allying with the Nazis before 1941. When Stalin allied with Hitler he lost a lot of support in Western countries. The NSDAP was an ardent enemy of communists they fought them in the streets in Germany, threw them in camps when they came to power and fought them internationally in Spain.
Extreme right wingers and anti-communists often praised Nazis and Fascists. In France the rightists slogan was "better Hitler then Blum (the Jewish socialist), The Daily Mail praised fascists, and the American Legion invited Mussolini to speak.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2015, 07:28:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2015, 07:16:08 PM
Just like the Hitler is a leftist argument.
No one has made that argument.
Tyr said that those arguments have been made. In fact, they are frequently made amongst right wingers in the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2015, 07:36:57 PM
Tyr said that those arguments have been made.
Can't argue with that.
Hitler is the Fiji to Stalin's Samoa. Or vice versa. Not so important which side of the international date line they fall on as that they're both way out in the middle of the south Pacific.
Rather than a line I imagine the left-right spectrum as a horseshoe shape, so the communists and fascists are closer to each other than they are to the liberal centre.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 14, 2015, 07:19:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 07:03:26 PM
This is reasonable, if deeply debatable, up to 9 and 10. Both Franco and Hitler pursued very statist economic policies. And it's not as if someone who is center-right enjoys wars of conquest and exterminating race enemies, just not quite as much as Hitler did.
Of course, as someone already pointed out it's impossible for a linear scale to encompass all the variation in political opinions.
As you mention it isn't so possible to put all political opinions on a linear scale. For example, what counts as far right? It could include a true believer in absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings, a white supremacist, or a hardcore economic libertarian. The three have almost nothing in common.
I think the 10 spot has to go to Hitler though. When you hear of "far right extremist groups", you know the discussion isn't about Milton Friedman disciples. I think most people understands that far right usually includes racism and extreme nationalism, while center right does not.
I thought this was purely economics, not counting social policies. So to me, a 10 would be a true libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, as in people are able to self govern themselves without the need to regulate the market.
At 0, you are a pure communist, meaning you think a government intervention is necessary to bring you to state of utopia where people will self govern themselves. I think typical anarchist would fit in the same spot, despite them not seeing eye to eye with the communists.
Interesting bimodal distribution at 3 and 7.
Do we really have six people that are between 8 & 10? :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
Do we really have six people that are between 8 & 10? :hmm:
only because there's nothing higher :( people are a little shy of putting themselves on the max slot.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
Do we really have six people that are between 8 & 10? :hmm:
I couldn't name them if so. Maybe there are a bunch of people who don't post on politics much. We do tend to beat the snot out of people with minority opinions sometimes. :P
Beeb said he's a 10. Veep said he's a 10. Seeb, if he voted, must be a 10. Speesh has to be at least an 8.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2015, 04:14:11 PM
Beeb said he's a 10. Veep said he's a 10. Seeb, if he voted, must be a 10. Speesh has to be at least an 8.
Saw Beeb's post. Did not see Veep. I'm definitely farther to the right than either of them, so I declare their 10s to be null and void. I am the only 9 thus far.
Did Hansy vote? :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:15:30 PM
Saw Beeb's post. Did not see Veep. I'm definitely farther to the right than either of them, so I declare their 10s to be null and void. I am the only 9 thus far.
Hey, if you're a 20 on Languish, they can be 10s. :P
Beetlejuice had to give himself at least an 8.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:15:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2015, 04:14:11 PM
Beeb said he's a 10. Veep said he's a 10. Seeb, if he voted, must be a 10. Speesh has to be at least an 8.
Saw Beeb's post. Did not see Veep. I'm definitely farther to the right than either of them, so I declare their 10s to be null and void. I am the only 9 thus far.
I said I was an eleven. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2015, 04:20:21 PM
I said I was an eleven. :mad:
You get points off for supporting abortion and the metric system.
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2015, 03:06:00 PM
It is purely down to your own judgement of course, thus we may well get Siege (by my scale a 12) seeing himself as a centrist, but in our own self-identification, from 1 on the far left to 10 on the far right, it would be interesting to see how we place ourselves.
I disagree with the whole left and right simplified scale.
What would be far right for you?
No even economic models can be measure in an stristraight line. Take free market capitalism. To be really free it needs to be protected from monopolistic capitalism, and all other forms of concentration of capital. At the same time, it needs to be protected from government intervention, over taxation, and hungry politicians that redistribute the capital from wealth creators to welfare recipients as a modern form of buying votes.
Free market capitalism is very fragile and is under constant attack from all sides. Therefore to me free market capitalism is the center, welfare state is the left, command economy the far left, unregulated market the right, monopolism of state the far right.
Oh, and by he way, I voted four.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
Do we really have six people that are between 8 & 10? :hmm:
I gave myself an 8, though my '8 is obviously different from yours. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:15:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2015, 04:14:11 PM
Beeb said he's a 10. Veep said he's a 10. Seeb, if he voted, must be a 10. Speesh has to be at least an 8.
Saw Beeb's post. Did not see Veep. I'm definitely farther to the right than either of them, so I declare their 10s to be null and void. I am the only 9 thus far.
Well Tamas, you, dps, Viper, Yi, Habs
There we go.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:27:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2015, 04:20:21 PM
I said I was an eleven. :mad:
But you ain't.
Well the 1s are pretty weak 1s. Sheilbh talking crap to the Greens for being too insane doesn't sound like a far left nutcase.
9's. Pfft. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2015, 05:41:52 PM
Well Tamas, you, dps, Viper, Yi, Habs
There we go.
I answered 7.
Over the last decade I've probably gone from a 6.5 to a 5.
To the extent that a single axis can really describe an overall political ideology, anyway.
On social issues I am probably a 2.
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2015, 06:32:34 PM
I was close at least!
I agree with his 7 tbh. Guys like Yi and Tamas are never on the "convert gays" or "landmine the borders" bandwagon. Hell, even Hansy has his limits there.
Also, I think you put yourself too far to the right Valmy. Just living in Texas doesn't give you an extra point or anything. :P
I favor land mines on the border, backed by company sized reaction forces to liquidate the foriegners.
AM I SERIOUS? You'll never know. BWHAHAHAHA
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
Do we really have six people that are between 8 & 10? :hmm:
Hans, Siege, you and Ed makes 4, guess there are two others...
Hans ain't been around in forever, has he?
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2015, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
Do we really have six people that are between 8 & 10? :hmm:
Hans, Siege, you and Ed makes 4, guess there are two others...
I didn't vote.
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2015, 05:42:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:27:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2015, 04:20:21 PM
I said I was an eleven. :mad:
But you ain't.
Well the 1s are pretty weak 1s. Sheilbh talking crap to the Greens for being too insane doesn't sound like a far left nutcase.
Heck, I'd say if anything, he's a bit right of center. IMO, you're further left than he is. I have no idea why you two rated yourselves as you did.
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2015, 07:10:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 16, 2015, 06:46:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2015, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
Do we really have six people that are between 8 & 10? :hmm:
Hans, Siege, you and Ed makes 4, guess there are two others...
I didn't vote.
likely story
I deny everything
Asoka.
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2015, 06:31:03 PM
Over the last decade I've probably gone from a 6.5 to a 5.
To the extent that a single axis can really describe an overall political ideology, anyway.
On social issues I am probably a 2.
I am so disappointed, Berkut.
Let me ask you straight:
Where do you stand on the 3 constitutional conservative principles of small government, free market economy, and liberty?
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2015, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
Do we really have six people that are between 8 & 10? :hmm:
Hans, Siege, you and Ed makes 4, guess there are two others...
I didn't vote.
I am boycotting this poll because it is way less defined than the poll I did 3 weeks ago, in which I wxplained the different positions, as in Clinton liberal vs Obama socialism.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F09MEcII.jpg&hash=4326c852a8c17b94c8d79ba2d55b68b3c184aa2e)
I think Barbara is a "9"
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 16, 2015, 08:55:24 PM
I think Barbara is a "9"
:blink: Well, to each his own, I guess.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 16, 2015, 06:36:59 PM
Also, I think you put yourself too far to the right Valmy. Just living in Texas doesn't give you an extra point or anything. :P
Yeah I probably should have been 4 or 5. I have considered myself right wing for so long and old habits are hard to break.
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2015, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2015, 06:31:03 PM
Over the last decade I've probably gone from a 6.5 to a 5.
To the extent that a single axis can really describe an overall political ideology, anyway.
On social issues I am probably a 2.
I am so disappointed, Berkut.
Let me ask you straight:
Where do you stand on the 3 constitutional conservative principles of small government, free market economy, and liberty?
I think "small" government hasn't existed in over a hundred years, so it is a moot point.
I think a free market economy is what we have, and we should continue to have. The big change for me is that I no longer believe that within the bounds of a free market, more free is actually better. The results largely speak for themselves, and it is clear to me that when all the actors are unrestrained, those with power and wealth will manipulate the system to get themselves more and more power and wealth. This must be controlled in some fashion, IMO.
Nothing has changed on my view towards the over-riding supremacy of individual liberty as a driving principal in western liberal democracies.
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 09:53:48 AM
The big change for me is that I no longer believe that within the bounds of a free market, more free is actually better. The results largely speak for themselves, and it is clear to me that when all the actors are unrestrained, those with power and wealth will manipulate the system to get themselves more and more power and wealth. This must be controlled in some fashion, IMO.
:(
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 09:53:48 AM
The big change for me is that I no longer believe that within the bounds of a free market, more free is actually better. The results largely speak for themselves, and it is clear to me that when all the actors are unrestrained, those with power and wealth will manipulate the system to get themselves more and more power and wealth. This must be controlled in some fashion, IMO.
:(
Can you really watch what is happening in this country and come to some OTHER conclusion?
The ultra-rich are getting more and more and more and more ultra-rich. It is not sustainable.
This is the same bitch I have had with democrats and their dogged faith in re-distributive taxation. Even if you assume that it is desirable, surely there is some point where you say "This is enough - this is the right balance".
So I am curious, what is it that you think is the right distribution? Unless you are an extreme outlier in the US population, it is very likely that what you think is ideal is radically different from where you think it is now, and where it actually is likely far worse than where you think it is now, and it is getting worse every year, not better.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ucsc.edu%2Fwhorulesamerica%2Fpower%2Fimages%2Fwealth%2FActual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif&hash=13ea3a52bab471a2bcad20f28fe53c0f0c5a1e49)
You know what happens when those with power and wealth ignore the common yokels right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ehow.com%2Fimages%2Fa04%2Fjn%2Fi2%2Fwho-was-involved-french-revolution-200X200.jpg&hash=6d2e549310a63a1b3120c4be6814350248a36cf0)
That's right. We get mowed down by their invincible army of combat robots.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 10:13:18 AM
That's right. We get mowed down by their invincible army of combat robots.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 10:12:59 AM
Can you really watch what is happening in this country and come to some OTHER conclusion?
The ultra-rich are getting more and more and more and more ultra-rich. It is not sustainable.
This is the same bitch I have had with democrats and their dogged faith in re-distributive taxation. Even if you assume that it is desirable, surely there is some point where you say "This is enough - this is the right balance".
So I am curious, what is it that you think is the right distribution? Unless you are an extreme outlier in the US population, it is very likely that what you think is ideal is radically different from where you think it is now, and where it actually is likely far worse than where you think it is now, and it is getting worse every year, not better.
I just don't see it as something to get worked up about. I would like to see the middle class doing a bit better than it is, but I don't think we should do that by picking the Rich Man's pocket.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:16:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 10:12:59 AM
Can you really watch what is happening in this country and come to some OTHER conclusion?
The ultra-rich are getting more and more and more and more ultra-rich. It is not sustainable.
This is the same bitch I have had with democrats and their dogged faith in re-distributive taxation. Even if you assume that it is desirable, surely there is some point where you say "This is enough - this is the right balance".
So I am curious, what is it that you think is the right distribution? Unless you are an extreme outlier in the US population, it is very likely that what you think is ideal is radically different from where you think it is now, and where it actually is likely far worse than where you think it is now, and it is getting worse every year, not better.
I just don't see it as something to get worked up about.
A greater and greater share of the nations wealth and political power going to a smaller and smaller slice of the population is not something to get worked up about?
Quote
I would like to see the middle class doing a bit better than it is, but I don't think we should do that by picking the Rich Man's pocket.
If the middle class is not doing better because the ultra rich are taking 100%+ of the increases in wealth, then you cannot possibly address that issue without, well, addressing that issue.
Your statements make no sense together. It is like saying you wish your baseball team would hit better, but you don't think we should worry about their ability to hit the ball so much.
Berkut, I take exception with your notion of "taking wealth."
When I make an IRA contribution, I'm not "taking wealth." When that contribution earns a return I'm not "taking wealth."
Contributing to the IRA Yi? Well I guess people celebrate St. Patrick's day in all sorts of ways.
In all seriousness the problem is technological change and its influence on the structure of economies. I don't know what the answer is but things will be pretty messy until we figure it out.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 10:32:49 AM
Contributing to the IRA Yi? Well I guess people celebrate St. Patrick's day in all sorts of ways.
Yeah WTF. That's Seedy's schtick.
The chick on the phone had a sexy accent. :blush:
Bleh. Irish is one of the least sexy accents out there.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:53:26 AM
Bleh. Irish is one of the least sexy accents out there.
Great on guys.
I recently realized that what I don't like is women with South African accents. Sounds a bit grating.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:53:26 AM
Bleh. Irish is one of the least sexy accents out there.
:o
Disagree.
Quote from: garbon on March 17, 2015, 10:54:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:53:26 AM
Bleh. Irish is one of the least sexy accents out there.
Great on guys.
I recently realized that what I don't like is women with South African accents. Sounds a bit grating.
Australian women are worse. Somehow making "No" into three syllables. :yuk:
Quote from: garbon on March 17, 2015, 10:54:34 AM
Great on guys.
Makes sense. The ladies sure love that Colin Farrell in all his gruffness.
QuoteI recently realized that what I don't like is women with South African accents. Sounds a bit grating.
The only South African gal I've spent any time around had such a faded accent she nearly sounded American, save for how she pronounced certain vowels.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 10:55:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:53:26 AM
Bleh. Irish is one of the least sexy accents out there.
:o
Disagree.
Sounds too rough and unsophisticated. Same goes for women with Scottish accents, I guess. Now a good English accent (well most of them anyway)--- Daddy like.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 10:13:18 AM
You know what happens when those with power and wealth ignore the common yokels right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ehow.com%2Fimages%2Fa04%2Fjn%2Fi2%2Fwho-was-involved-french-revolution-200X200.jpg&hash=6d2e549310a63a1b3120c4be6814350248a36cf0)
That's right. We get mowed down by their invincible army of combat robots.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 10:33:54 AM
In all seriousness the problem is technological change and its influence on the structure of economies. I don't know what the answer is but things will be pretty messy until we figure it out.
Hint: it's communism.
i tend to interpret the law conservatively and often agree with conservative SCOTUS justices, but i consider myself liberal. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 11:10:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 10:55:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:53:26 AM
Bleh. Irish is one of the least sexy accents out there.
:o
Disagree.
Sounds too rough and unsophisticated. Same goes for women with Scottish accents, I guess. Now a good English accent (well most of them anyway)--- Daddy like.
Depends what type of Irish and what type of Scottish IMO.
Glasgow- no. Edinburgh- yes. :wub:
I don't live close enough to bother differentiating.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 10:29:33 AM
Berkut, I take exception with your notion of "taking wealth."
When I make an IRA contribution, I'm not "taking wealth." When that contribution earns a return I'm not "taking wealth."
I don't really care what you call it, that is semantics. Call it whatever you like, the process by which the ultra-rich are consolidating more and more of the wealth and political power into their hands is a problem no matter what you call it.
It's no more semantics than the terms "my money" and "your money" are semantics.
French chicks have the sexiest accents.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2015, 02:43:36 PM
French chicks have the sexiest accents.
They rejected me enough times it now gives me a kind of PTSD :blush:
Oh Sophie what we could have been.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2015, 02:43:36 PM
French chicks have the sexiest accents.
But French guys have the most punchable accents.
Italians however. Both are great :cheers:
The whole Stalin/Hitler fallacy comes from a failure to understand that there are three large political ideologies, not two - liberalism, collectivism and conservatism. Both Stalin and Hilter were collectivist (although Hitler also used elements of conservatism). Both were equidistant from liberalism.
I don't think Hitler was collectivist. He wasn't abolishing private property. Hitler didn't seem have much opinion on economics one way or another. The topic bored him. All he cared about was destroying his enemies.
Fascism and Nazism were bizarre ideologies that strapped together so many different things, neither was particularly coherent.
But Hitler was collectivist. He, or at least his supporters believed, in a nation being of one will that everybody is aligned with. Abolishing private property might seem like a logical next step with that kind of idea but, as I said, do not expect too much coherence from Nazi ideas.
Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2015, 02:52:40 PM
The whole Stalin/Hitler fallacy comes from a failure to understand that there are three large political ideologies, not two - liberalism, collectivism and conservatism. Both Stalin and Hilter were collectivist (although Hitler also used elements of conservatism). Both were equidistant from liberalism.
What do you mean by conservatism? Like class privilege, monarchy, church, etc?
Economics are very much secondary to the right-left thing. Hitler overall was all about some people being inherently better than others, that has right wing written all over it, even if most right wingers don't go anywhere near such extremes of 'lets turn the inferior people into lampshades'.
Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2015, 02:52:40 PM
The whole Stalin/Hitler fallacy comes from a failure to understand that there are three large political ideologies, not two - liberalism, collectivism and conservatism. Both Stalin and Hilter were collectivist (although Hitler also used elements of conservatism). Both were equidistant from liberalism.
:hmm: More agreement with Martinus. This is troublesome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 03:02:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2015, 02:52:40 PM
The whole Stalin/Hitler fallacy comes from a failure to understand that there are three large political ideologies, not two - liberalism, collectivism and conservatism. Both Stalin and Hilter were collectivist (although Hitler also used elements of conservatism). Both were equidistant from liberalism.
What do you mean by conservatism? Like class privilege, monarchy, church, etc?
I have no idea what's on about. The underlying principle of rightist thought is the creation of or preservation of hierarchy. The underlying principle of leftist thought is equality. In Hitler's view, the hierarchy was based mostly on race.
Quote from: Tyr on March 17, 2015, 03:03:49 PM
Economics are very much secondary to the right-left thing.
Economics are the closest place the "right-left thing" comes to coherence.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 17, 2015, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2015, 02:52:40 PM
The whole Stalin/Hitler fallacy comes from a failure to understand that there are three large political ideologies, not two - liberalism, collectivism and conservatism. Both Stalin and Hilter were collectivist (although Hitler also used elements of conservatism). Both were equidistant from liberalism.
:hmm: More agreement with Martinus. This is troublesome.
That is troubling. You need your head examined to see if something fell out.
Quote from: Tyr on March 17, 2015, 03:03:49 PM
Economics are very much secondary to the right-left thing. Hitler overall was all about some people being inherently better than others, that has right wing written all over it, even if most right wingers don't go anywhere near such extremes of 'lets turn the inferior people into lampshades'.
Can you provide some more moderate examples of this attitude in modern-day politics?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2015, 03:08:35 PM
The underlying principle of rightist thought is the creation of or preservation of hierarchy.
Huh. Any right wingers want to comment on this? It can be true depending on the flavor of rightism but if somebody says they are rightwing I don't know if I immediately assume this is true.
QuoteThe underlying principle of leftist thought is equality.
I think of it more like justice.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 03:17:26 PM
Huh. Any right wingers want to comment on this?
The only way it makes the remotest bit of sense to me is if you spin opposition to equality of outcome as preservation of hierarchy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 03:20:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 03:17:26 PM
Huh. Any right wingers want to comment on this?
The only way it makes the remotest bit of sense to me is if you spin opposition to equality of outcome as preservation of hierarchy.
...which would be, of course, idiotic.
Any "definition" that those who actually claim to hold to reject is a crappy definition, in general. And specifically as it regards to any attempt to actually have a discussion, it is definitely worse than useless.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 03:17:26 PM
Huh. Any right wingers want to comment on this? It can be true depending on the flavor of rightism but if somebody says they are rightwing I don't know if I immediately assume this is true.
In terms of authoritarian rightism, I'd agree with Raz. But not everyone on the right is authoritarian, at least not since Goldwater.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 03:29:13 PM
In terms of authoritarian rightism, I'd agree with Raz. But not everyone on the right is authoritarian, at least not since Goldwater.
Not a concept I'm familiar with. Please elaborate.
Was Goldwater a rightist?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2015, 04:00:15 PM
Was Goldwater a rightist?
He opposed the public accomodation clause of the Civil Rights Act on the grounds it was an infringement on property rights. That's about as far right as one can go IMO without being a loon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 03:29:13 PM
In terms of authoritarian rightism, I'd agree with Raz. But not everyone on the right is authoritarian, at least not since Goldwater.
Not a concept I'm familiar with. Please elaborate.
Thought this was something we were all pretty familiar with. I find it a lot more useful than a simple left-right axis.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9c%2FPolitical_chart.svg%2F2000px-Political_chart.svg.png&hash=ca64ec63512b38871c753ea7736ff5f092e1bfbc)
LOL Libertarian Socialist.
And FWIW, here are my results from the quiz at https://www.politicalcompass.org/
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=8.25&soc=-2.05)
I can understand the concept of authoritarianism as the antithesis of libertarianism, but I don't see what it has to do with maintaining hierarchy.
Ah. Well, doesn't a more rigid authority pretty much by definition require some sort of hierarchy?
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-3.88&soc=-5.38)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fpolcomp_zpseivuy3aj.jpg&hash=db727eac656b675c0d0e950cbe42ef563b7f0632)
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 04:40:41 PM
Ah. Well, doesn't a more rigid authority pretty much by definition require some sort of hierarchy?
I don't see, if the rules apply equally to everyone.
Or see why, whichever the case may be.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
And FWIW, here are my results from the quiz at https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Quite a few questions don't make any sense regarding that axis (what does astrology or being cheerful in the face of trouble have to do with being leftist/rightist or authoritarian?), but anyway:
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-4.75&soc=-6.1)
Meh, I consider myself socially very libertarian and economically quite socialist. So I guess I get thrown in that lower left quadrant despite not having a single Bakunian bone in my body.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-2.88&soc=-4.56)
I got to page 6 and copped out.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-4.0&soc=-7.03)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2015, 04:00:15 PM
Was Goldwater a rightist?
He opposed the public accomodation clause of the Civil Rights Act on the grounds it was an infringement on property rights. That's about as far right as one can go IMO without being a loon.
He was also in favor of gay rights and a number of other things normally associated with the left.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-0.5&soc=-4.41)
Alright I guess I am a 4 or 5.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-0.88&soc=-0.77)
:hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2015, 05:02:08 PM
He was also in favor of gay rights and a number of other things normally associated with the left.
But which is totally consistent with being an extreme libertarian.
Burger: :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 05:03:51 PM
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-0.5&soc=-4.41)
Alright I guess I am a 4 or 5.
Basically twinsies! :hug:
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-0.63&soc=-4.51)
Course, it'd be possible to disagree on 3/4 of the items and both get that score. :contract:
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-3.13&soc=-4.15)
Wow, we are all mostly right about the same spot.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-1.88&soc=-4.46)
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=0.88&soc=-0.1)
At first I thought "pretty much the same as last time" and that this is a result of my holding such a ragbag of opinions across the scale.
Then I realised I was closer in my position to the SNP than any other British political party. :(
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-9.63&soc=-0.67)
This test is kind of dumb. Apparently you can answer "eugenics for all," "executions are rad," "surveil everything," and "collectivize the land" and still be "libertarian."
I'm Hitler according to the quiz I didn't take.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 05:40:15 PM
This test is kind of dumb. Apparently you can answer "eugenics for all," "executions are rad," "surveil everything," and "collectivize the land" and still be "libertarian."
Well libertarians are pretty hated.
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 05:40:15 PM
This test is kind of dumb. Apparently you can answer "eugenics for all," "executions are rad," "surveil everything," and "collectivize the land" and still be "libertarian."
You're not though, you basically are scoring as a "centrist" on that axis.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 17, 2015, 05:38:15 PM
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015
So Labour are a right-wing authoritarian party according to that test? :huh:
Quote from: celedhring on March 17, 2015, 05:56:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on March 17, 2015, 05:38:15 PM
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015
So Labour are a right-wing authoritarian party according to that test? :huh:
They blame that to Blair's New Labour in the text. Then again it's kinda ridiculous, to them every single British party except for two are authoritarian, and all the big ones are right wing.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uk2015.png)
Checking their scores for the candidates for the US presidency in the last elections and of the different governments of EU countries in 2012 they seem to have a "everybody is a right wing authoritarian" schtick".
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2012.png)
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/eu2012.png)
They are a left version of Siege. :lol:
Yet most of the forum is in the opposite quadrant. :hmm:
I'm as far right as Harold Wilson was and as far left as Ted Heath. :bowler:
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 03:24:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 03:20:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 03:17:26 PM
Huh. Any right wingers want to comment on this?
The only way it makes the remotest bit of sense to me is if you spin opposition to equality of outcome as preservation of hierarchy.
...which would be, of course, idiotic.
Any "definition" that those who actually claim to hold to reject is a crappy definition, in general. And specifically as it regards to any attempt to actually have a discussion, it is definitely worse than useless.
It's what is found in Political science text books. In American rightwing thought this manifests as the freedom to rise higher then your fellows by working hard or being smart (or just being born rich). The hierarchy is one social one with only indirect power. The power is typically money. A rich man can't command a poor person to do something but is wealth brings him benefits and social status.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 17, 2015, 07:24:26 PM
Yet most of the forum is in the opposite quadrant. :hmm:
I really suspect if the politicians plotted took the test they would not be where they are according to that. They seem to skew them up and right.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 17, 2015, 07:24:26 PM
Yet most of the forum is in the opposite quadrant. :hmm:
The authoritarian-libertarian axis is bullshit.
How so?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2015, 10:23:02 PM
How so?
Because the opposite of libertarian is not authoritarian. Libertarians want protection of property rights which requires some sort of authority even if it's just a mob. The opposite of Authoritarianism is anarchy where there are no restrictions on actions at all. Not legal, ethical, religious, private or public.
You are wrong, Raz, anarchism is really the extreme form of libertarianism.
Is Raz talking about anarchism or anarchy? Traditional anarchists don't necessarily support anarchy, just voluntary, self-organized order maintained by social norms.
"Michael Brown, a police officer, a radical Muslim from CAIR, and a Jew are on one side of a river and have to get across on a boat that can only fit two people. If the radical Muslim from CAIR is alone with the Jew, he will attack him. If Michael Brown is alone with the police officer, he will take the police officer's gun and shoot him with it. How can the four get across safely without harm coming to anyone?
If 4 homeland security employees can legalize 40 illegals in 4 hours, how many hours would it take 7 homeland security employees to legalize 70 illegals?
If you call a company in Mexico on the phone, what number do you need to press to hear the voice menu in Spanish?
When minority youngsters get into violent trouble with police, we always see photos of them dressed in their high school graduation outfit. Do you think minority youth would be less suspicious looking if they stopped using graduation outfits as every day walking around clothes?
If Lando Calrissian is the only black person in the original Star Wars universe, who were his parents?
In the Blade series Wesley Snipes was a black vampire at conflict with white vampires. Do you think if the white vampires had a more inclusive diversity program, that conflict might have been avoided?
If it is ok to remake Shakespeare and Little Orphan Annie with black people, when can we expect to see the remake of Roots with an all white cast?"
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 18, 2015, 02:14:40 AM
Is Raz talking about anarchism or anarchy? Traditional anarchists don't necessarily support anarchy, just voluntary, self-organized order maintained by social norms.
I don't think Raz knows. He's been demonizing "libertarians' here for so long I don't think he even knows that the term describes a belief set rather than a group of people. Anarchy describes a condition, not a set of beliefs. As you note, anarchism isn't the espousal of anarchy, but rather the rejection of arbitrary authority.
And I see Siege is plagiarizing more ideas from other people. At least he and ML King Jr had one thing in common.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 05:01:28 AM
If it is ok to remake Shakespeare and Little Orphan Annie with black people, when can we expect to see the remake of Roots with an all white cast?"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jonathanrosenbaum.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fothello1.jpg&hash=d89f3e08b47fc67c08bf07b1f86c655884272080)
QuoteWhen minority youngsters get into violent trouble with police, we always see photos of them dressed in their high school graduation outfit. Do you think minority youth would be less suspicious looking if they stopped using graduation outfits as every day walking around clothes?
"Always"? Every single minority youngster who has ever gotten into violent trouble with the police have graduated from High School? That is an amazing stat Siege. Why do you think minorities always wait until they are over 18 to get into violent trouble with the police and why do they graduate at a higher rate than the general population?
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2015, 12:58:03 AM
You are wrong, Raz, anarchism is really the extreme form of libertarianism.
Nope. Most forms of Anarchy abolish private property. That's a big no-no in libertarian circles.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 18, 2015, 02:14:40 AM
Is Raz talking about anarchism or anarchy? Traditional anarchists don't necessarily support anarchy, just voluntary, self-organized order maintained by social norms.
I thought I said anarchy.
Quote from: grumbler on March 18, 2015, 06:18:10 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 18, 2015, 02:14:40 AM
Is Raz talking about anarchism or anarchy? Traditional anarchists don't necessarily support anarchy, just voluntary, self-organized order maintained by social norms.
I don't think Raz knows. He's been demonizing "libertarians' here for so long I don't think he even knows that the term describes a belief set rather than a group of people. Anarchy describes a condition, not a set of beliefs. As you note, anarchism isn't the espousal of anarchy, but rather the rejection of arbitrary authority.
Says, the libertarian. Don't bother denying it. I know you wouldn't dream of disagreeing with me.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 09:45:52 AM
Nope. Most forms of Anarchy abolish private property. That's a big no-no in libertarian circles.
Just pretend it says 'order vs anarchy'. Same intended meaning and no need for us to get into semantic debates.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 09:50:20 AM
Says, the libertarian. Don't bother denying it.
The Raz Inquisition!
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 09:53:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 09:45:52 AM
Nope. Most forms of Anarchy abolish private property. That's a big no-no in libertarian circles.
Just pretend it says 'order vs anarchy'. Same intended meaning and no need for us to get into semantic debates.
That is a bit more acceptable. It the graph seems like a lot like the Nolan chart, which is designed to convince people they are already libertarian.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 09:57:43 AM
That is a bit more acceptable. It the graph seems like a lot like the Nolan chart, which is designed to convince people they are already libertarian.
I think the issue isn't with the chart itself, but the questions asked and where it plots your answers on the chart. The chart itself is solid IMO.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 09:53:29 AM
Just pretend it says 'order vs anarchy'. Same intended meaning and no need for us to get into semantic debates.
So long as no one but Raz makes that blunder, that's a good solution. Anarchy is a condition, though, not a belief system. If other people make the mistake of believing that the only alternative to authoritarianism is anarchy, then they fall into the trap the right routinely sets.
Ok I recommend we move to this one:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmelissawalshe.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FClassic-Alignment.jpg&hash=7b2e659e288ca9dff1bde36a4e0182c87a64e8c6)
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2015, 10:13:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 09:57:43 AM
That is a bit more acceptable. It the graph seems like a lot like the Nolan chart, which is designed to convince people they are already libertarian.
I think the issue isn't with the chart itself, but the questions asked and where it plots your answers on the chart. The chart itself is solid IMO.
Where would you put Anarcho-Syndacism?
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2015, 10:13:15 AM
I think the issue isn't with the chart itself, but the questions asked and where it plots your answers on the chart. The chart itself is solid IMO.
Eh, even if you had perfectly chosen issues along a line to demarcate a preference for order vs freedom or vice versa, but only when those principles collide, there would still be the problem that many controversial issues don't fit properly on either that axis or the economic one.
I think maybe you're trying to put too fine of a point on it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 10:50:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2015, 10:13:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 09:57:43 AM
That is a bit more acceptable. It the graph seems like a lot like the Nolan chart, which is designed to convince people they are already libertarian.
I think the issue isn't with the chart itself, but the questions asked and where it plots your answers on the chart. The chart itself is solid IMO.
Where would you put Anarcho-Syndacism?
Bottom left.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 18, 2015, 11:42:08 AM
Eh, even if you had perfectly chosen issues along a line to demarcate a preference for order vs freedom or vice versa, but only when those principles collide, there would still be the problem that many controversial issues don't fit properly on either that axis or the economic one.
You can always find issues that don't fit on any axis, let alone the economic freedom/personal freedom axes that the political compass is trying to capture), but I suspect they will be fewer on the compass than most 2-axis spectra.
Even when they forced collectivization? Or when they Joined with the communist government in Spain. Or Nestor Makho's Anarchists in the Ukraine who did similar things and slaughtered Mennonites.
Any ideology that totally rejects government is like a saddle without a horse. When put in practice it must be amended to use coercion otherwise it's as useless people debating on a forum.
This is one of the reasons I am suspicious of Libertarians and their desire of a world without coercion. A great deal of them own weapons, and people who own weapons believe in coercion.
Any ideas for a z-axis for the Political Compass?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 18, 2015, 01:46:47 PM
Any ideas for a z-axis for the Political Compass?
Necktie-Bacon.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 01:43:36 PM
Even when they forced collectivization? Or when they Joined with the communist government in Spain. Or Nestor Makho's Anarchists in the Ukraine who did similar things and slaughtered Mennonites.
No. Not then. Nobody's perfect.
QuoteAny ideology that totally rejects government is like a saddle without a horse. When put in practice it must be amended to use coercion otherwise it's as useless people debating on a forum.
None of us have an ideology that totally rejects government, so I am glad we are still useful to debate on a forum. Well at least not so far as I know. Scips or Habs might but they rarely debate this kind of stuff with us.
QuoteThis is one of the reasons I am suspicious of Libertarians and their desire of a world without coercion. A great deal of them own weapons, and people who own weapons believe in coercion.
I do believe in coercion yet I have no weapons. It is only because of coercion that I am able to do so.
But in any case, as I said, that axis there is not an indication of fanatical Libertarians but 'Liberty vs. Safety' or 'Freedom vs. Control' or whatever. We all know you hate Libertarians.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
And FWIW, here are my results from the quiz at https://www.politicalcompass.org/
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=8.25&soc=-2.05)
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=2.25&soc=-4.31)
:hug:
You are far close to garbon and I than you are to him -_-
But we're in the same quadrant at least. :hmm:
Yeah, that's gotta count for something :hug:
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 02:23:08 PM
But we're in the same quadrant at least. :hmm:
The second best quadrant.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 18, 2015, 01:46:47 PM
Any ideas for a z-axis for the Political Compass?
I would think that "left" and "right" don't help much in that compass. I would have "conservative" and "radical" - i.e. how much change do you think is necessary/tolerable. Then I'd have an "individual/collective" axis, wherein you evaluate how much of the risk/reward of (economic?) activity should be borne by each of us, and how much by all of us together.
Still doesn't capture everything, but would capture more than "left/right."
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 01:43:36 PM
This is one of the reasons I am suspicious of Libertarians and their desire of a world without coercion. A great deal of them own weapons, and people who own weapons believe in coercion.
I don't believe in cohersion and I own a few weapons.
People own guns to defend themselves and their familes, and because it is a principle that discorage criminals.
Compare any major city with strong 2nd ammendment vs cities with strong gun regulation, and you'll see how gun ownership reduces crime.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 04:18:52 PM
I don't believe in cohersion and I own a few weapons.
You don't believe in coercion yet you call for draconian law enforcement? Are you aware of what coercion means?
QuoteCompare any major city with strong 2nd ammendment vs cities with strong gun regulation, and you'll see how gun ownership reduces crime.
Ok. I will compare Toronto with Dallas. BRB.
Edit: Toronto has a lot less crime than Dallas. Damn, that did not even stand up to one test.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 04:18:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 01:43:36 PM
This is one of the reasons I am suspicious of Libertarians and their desire of a world without coercion. A great deal of them own weapons, and people who own weapons believe in coercion.
I don't believe in cohersion and I own a few weapons.
People own guns to defend themselves and their familes, and because it is a principle that discorage criminals.
Compare any major city with strong 2nd ammendment vs cities with strong gun regulation, and you'll see how gun ownership reduces crime.
Discouraging criminals by having a weapon is called "coercion".
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 10:45:20 AM
Ok I recommend we move to this one:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmelissawalshe.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FClassic-Alignment.jpg&hash=7b2e659e288ca9dff1bde36a4e0182c87a64e8c6)
Well the y axis does map pretty directly onto statism-libertarianism.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 18, 2015, 01:46:47 PM
Any ideas for a z-axis for the Political Compass?
Probably sexual morality--with perhaps a fourth axis for racism. The quiz places those questions on the authoritarian-libertarian axis, and despite one having pretty strongly statist tendencies, if one has no desire for the state to gas Jews or homosexuals, one may be considered a "centrist." This was the basis of my objection that the quiz is dumb.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 04:18:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 01:43:36 PM
This is one of the reasons I am suspicious of Libertarians and their desire of a world without coercion. A great deal of them own weapons, and people who own weapons believe in coercion.
I don't believe in cohersion and I own a few weapons.
People own guns to defend themselves and their familes, and because it is a principle that discorage criminals.
Compare any major city with strong 2nd ammendment vs cities with strong gun regulation, and you'll see how gun ownership reduces crime.
Siegebreaker: would you get behind a single-payer handgun program to ensure all citizens have adequate firepower to repel crime?
The x-axis works better, though I suppose you could flip the y-axis and get similar results.
I'm Lawful Evil with a flame sword +3 and a ring of magic missiles
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2015, 08:01:17 PM
I'm Lawful Evil with a flame sword +3 and a ring of magic missiles
I'm lawful good with a curling broom +1. :)
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-5.88&soc=-5.33)
Can I be: Libertarian socialist?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 18, 2015, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 18, 2015, 01:46:47 PM
Any ideas for a z-axis for the Political Compass?
Probably sexual morality--with perhaps a fourth axis for racism. The quiz places those questions on the authoritarian-libertarian axis, and despite one having pretty strongly statist tendencies, if one has no desire for the state to gas Jews or homosexuals, one may be considered a "centrist." This was the basis of my objection that the quiz is dumb.
I don't think sexual morality can be entirely separated from the libertarian-authoritarian axis, though I see your point; the Compass would classify both the religious right and the critical-studies left--who want to legislate very different versions of sexual morality--as simply authoritarian, masking an important distinction.
I think something like in-group-oriented vs. cosmopolitan could be a useful z-axis (though that's also partially covered by authoritarian-libertarian...).
For me it's a 6. Have been drifting towards right with age. Although I like being in the centre.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 19, 2015, 12:12:02 AM
I don't think sexual morality can be entirely separated from the libertarian-authoritarian axis, though I see your point; the Compass would classify both the religious right and the critical-studies left--who want to legislate very different versions of sexual morality--as simply authoritarian, masking an important distinction.
How is the distinction important?
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2015, 01:50:14 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 19, 2015, 12:12:02 AM
I don't think sexual morality can be entirely separated from the libertarian-authoritarian axis, though I see your point; the Compass would classify both the religious right and the critical-studies left--who want to legislate very different versions of sexual morality--as simply authoritarian, masking an important distinction.
How is the distinction important?
The Taliban and Tumblr feminists would create markedly different societies.
What's the meaning of "No one can feel naturally homosexual"?
This is bullshit.
I am not authoritarian.
Those questions were biased.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=6.5&soc=0.97)
That's because you love the military.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 04:18:52 PM
I don't believe in cohersion and I own a few weapons.
You don't believe in coercion yet you call for draconian law enforcement? Are you aware of what coercion means?
More importantly, does it matter that he doesn't believe in coercing others when he is concerned about someone else trying to coerce him with weapons? Why else he would he need weapons to avoid such coercion?
If someone with weapons is not a threat why do we need weapons to fight off someone with weapons?
Yeah, I don't see how responding to illegitimate coercion is coercion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 12:59:09 PM
Yeah, I don't see how responding to illegitimate coercion is coercion.
Because coercion is not bad or good. It is simply altering other people's behavior through violence or force of violence. The legitimacy of coercion does not matter. It's still coercion. It's like the word violence. If I shoot someone in self defense it's still an act of violence. Simply because I was justified in it doesn't make non-violent.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 12:45:33 PM
What's the meaning of "No one can feel naturally homosexual"?
^_^
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 19, 2015, 01:57:59 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2015, 01:50:14 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 19, 2015, 12:12:02 AM
I don't think sexual morality can be entirely separated from the libertarian-authoritarian axis, though I see your point; the Compass would classify both the religious right and the critical-studies left--who want to legislate very different versions of sexual morality--as simply authoritarian, masking an important distinction.
How is the distinction important?
The Taliban and Tumblr feminists would create markedly different societies.
Would they now?
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 12:50:52 PM
This is bullshit.
I am not authoritarian.
Those questions were biased.
That says that you've convinced yourself that freedom mostly means low taxes. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 12:50:52 PM
This is bullshit.
I am not authoritarian.
Those questions were biased.
That says that you've convinced yourself that freedom mostly means low taxes. :P
Strawman alert. I never said that. You are putting things in my mouth that I did not say.
Low taxes are necesary to free the capital to create new wealth and employment for those of us who do not know how to create wealth by ourselves.
As I said before, what is important in the economy is not how big the gap is between rich and poor, but rather how high over absolute zero the poor are. I wish the US had another million millionairs. Do you imagine the amount of capital adding to the real economy?
We want an economy in which employers compete for the employees, not the other way around, and to achieve that you need to free capital to be invested. Low taxes not only keep rich's people capital here in the US, but also attract the rich people from other countries.
There was a time when rich people moved to the US to invest. Now they all run away like rats from a sinking ship. Do we really want people to take their money to other countries?
The liberal mind never ceases to amaze me. They rise taxes and then ask themselves why people are running away to avoid taxes.
Well genious, who do you think is in a better position to avoid taxes? The rich or the middle class? The rich packs and invest somewhere else, the middle class have no choice but to stay because they depend of a job or an small business.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 01:57:45 PM
We want an economy in which employers compete for the employees
Those days are over, at least for the time being. Technology will replace too many workers.
QuoteThere was a time when rich people moved to the US to invest. Now they all run away like rats from a sinking ship. Do we really want people to take their money to other countries?
What has changed since that time? And what low tax paradise are they all running to?
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 02:01:29 PM
The liberal mind never ceases to amaze me. They rise taxes and then ask themselves why people are running away to avoid taxes.
I was not aware we raised taxes :hmm:
I was not even aware people were running away.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2015, 02:03:27 PM
I was not aware we raised taxes :hmm:
Taxes were raised on the rich as part of the Fiskal Kliff deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 02:05:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2015, 02:03:27 PM
I was not aware we raised taxes :hmm:
Taxes were raised on the rich as part of the Fiskal Kliff deal.
Ah. Thanks. Was it a significant tax hike?
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2015, 02:06:30 PM
Ah. Thanks. Was it a significant tax hike?
10 per centish? That's an educated guess.
Technology will replace many workers, while at the same time creating many new jobs we cannot even imagine today. In 1900 80% of the people in the US worked in agriculture. Today only 4%. With the industrialization of agriculture many people lost their jobs, and found new ones created because PRODUCTION went up. As long as production keeps growing, new capital will be available for loans in new economic sectors.
If technology was bad all those backward 3rd wold countries would be a paradise. Instead they work longer hours, producing less, with a lower standard of living.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 01:57:45 PM
Strawman alert. I never said that. You are putting things in my mouth that I did not say.
I didn't say you said that. I said that your test results show that. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2015, 02:12:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 01:57:45 PM
Strawman alert. I never said that. You are putting things in my mouth that I did not say.
I didn't say you said that. I said that your test results show that. :contract:
You missed the putting things in my mouth part...
How annoying.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 02:10:20 PM
Technology will replace many workers, while at the same time creating many new jobs we cannot even imagine today.
I am well aware this may be a temporary phenomenon. I was just talking about the immediate future.
But I think more goes into employment numbers than just tax policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2015, 02:06:30 PM
Ah. Thanks. Was it a significant tax hike?
10 per centish? That's an educated guess.
According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) the marginal (not effective) tax rate went up 4.6% for ~$400K+ (depending on status).
And has the result been investment fleeing the country?
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2015, 02:15:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 02:10:20 PM
Technology will replace many workers, while at the same time creating many new jobs we cannot even imagine today.
I am well aware this may be a temporary phenomenon. I was just talking about the immediate future.
But I think more goes into employment numbers than just tax policy.
No really. Well, minimum wage does because the higher it is the lower the value of the people making over the minimum.
An strong economy is property rights, low taxes, and no minimum wage.
Without minimum wage, employers compete for employees.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2015, 02:21:30 PM
And has the result been investment fleeing the country?
Well, considering US tax is still well below most other modern countries I would be surprised if it did.
Quote
No really. Well, minimum wage does because the higher it is the lower the value of the people making over the minimum.
An strong economy is property rights, low taxes, and no minimum wage.
Without minimum wage, employers compete for employees.
So once we dump the minimum wage we will have an explosion of highly paying jobs?
See this is back to the thinking that taxes and this sort of thing is the main driver of economics. I think there may be supply and demand and technological factors involved as well. The minimum wage has not gone up for a long time and the tax rates are pretty low, I don't see how they could have that much of an impact.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 02:10:20 PM
Technology will replace many workers, while at the same time creating many new jobs we cannot even imagine today.
I wonder why we can't imagine it. It might be because it's an unexamined article of faith amongst rightists and neoliberals, its sole logical underpinning an inductive process that assumes since the economy created jobs after the collapse of agriculture and industry in the West it will also create jobs following the collapse of service sector work. It would be more persuasive if the goal of capitalism were to create jobs, when of course it isn't. Capitalism, like evolution, is a mindless process that doesn't have a teleological goal at all; the goal of avowed capitalists is to create wealth (for themselves). That it's resulted in wealth generation that has been shared (albeit markedly unevenly) by all sectors of society is a meaningless thing to point out, since capitalism did it entirely by accident. It's even more meaningless, given that the conditions which permitted that have been replaced by new conditions to which you'd prefer to remain willfully blind--not least the end of the mid-century consensus towards a compromise with socialism's economic goals as a way to fight socialism politically at home and abroad. But above all you purposefully fail to comprehend the automation revolution that is underway, comparing it to farmhands moving to cities. In reality it is like nothing previously seen in human affairs. There is no fourth labor sector.
Sadly, the less-educated rightists and the more pie-eyed neoliberals have bought into several decades of propaganda and come to anthropomorphize capitalism as an conscious entity that has a list of priorities, with job creation at the top. All will be well--because their priests tell them so. That this incredibly adolescent worldview can be accepted by idiots is not too surprising, but that it is parroted by otherwise smart people is amazing.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2015, 02:47:46 PM
Quote
No really. Well, minimum wage does because the higher it is the lower the value of the people making over the minimum.
An strong economy is property rights, low taxes, and no minimum wage.
Without minimum wage, employers compete for employees.
So once we dump the minimum wage we will have an explosion of highly paying jobs?
Theoretically, shit would be cheaper, increasing the real value of "market"-determined wages.
In practice, higher minwage would force firms to seek further automation and productivity increases--they would anyway, but raising the minwage might make certain borderline decisions more immediately profitable. The result might be fewer workers in low-wage positions. It may also be that shifting firm expenditures to wages will be the demand-side stimulus we've needed forever, and it could all balance out. Hard to say. (The contrary would also be true: if the minwage was eliminated, and low-wage workers' pay collapsed, there would be even less demand and lower employment. Wage stickiness would make wage deflation difficult over the short term, however. Everyone would remember that the wage for the shittiest job in the world used to be $7.25/hr, and find it offensive to be paid even less. There are psychological aspects to economics that are sometimes overlooked.)
What it would almost certainly not do is lower the pay of skilled, medium-wage workers; it would be more likely to raise those, since wages of skilled work (or credentialed work, like I do) would become very, very unattractive if suddenly morons flipping burgers were making $20/hr and getting some exercise and free french fries while they were at it. Minwages tend to set a negotiation floor that everybody can stand on.
You learn that wages are sticky downwards in Macro 101.
How many people take Macro 101, Harvard?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 03:31:45 PM
Everyone would remember that the wage for the shittiest job in the world used to be $7.25/hr,
When was this? :hmm:
Well, February 2012, I can tell you that for a fact, jack. :hmm:
P.S. World = America. Job = lawful, paying job. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 03:38:47 PM
How many people take Macro 101, Harvard?
When you said there are psychological aspects to economics that are overlooked, I didn't think you were talking about people who overlooked economics entirely.
I think a lot of folks have opinions about economics that have never taken courses in it or read a book about it, and downward wage rigidity may very well be news to them.
Quit stalking me.
I don't get it. Also, you're mean.
It was a joke. You're a fag.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 02:10:20 PM
Technology will replace many workers, while at the same time creating many new jobs we cannot even imagine today.
I wonder why we can't imagine it. It might be because it's an unexamined article of faith amongst rightists and neoliberals, its sole logical underpinning an inductive process that assumes since the economy created jobs after the collapse of agriculture and industry in the West it will also create jobs following the collapse of service sector work. It would be more persuasive if the goal of capitalism were to create jobs, when of course it isn't. Capitalism, like evolution, is a mindless process that doesn't have a teleological goal at all; the goal of avowed capitalists is to create wealth (for themselves). That it's resulted in wealth generation that has been shared (albeit markedly unevenly) by all sectors of society is a meaningless thing to point out, since capitalism did it entirely by accident. It's even more meaningless, given that the conditions which permitted that have been replaced by new conditions to which you'd prefer to remain willfully blind--not least the end of the mid-century consensus towards a compromise with socialism's economic goals as a way to fight socialism politically at home and abroad. But above all you purposefully fail to comprehend the automation revolution that is underway, comparing it to farmhands moving to cities. In reality it is like nothing previously seen in human affairs. There is no fourth labor sector.
Sadly, the less-educated rightists and the more pie-eyed neoliberals have bought into several decades of propaganda and come to anthropomorphize capitalism as an conscious entity that has a list of priorities, with job creation at the top. All will be well--because their priests tell them so. That this incredibly adolescent worldview can be accepted by idiots is not too surprising, but that it is parroted by otherwise smart people is amazing.
Holy crap, I kind of agree with a lot of this.
WTF is wrong with me?
Well at least you recognize something is wrong. :D
Nothing's wrong. Ide simply sees with more clarity the problems of the world that is than those of the one he would create.
I would actually be in favor of getting rid of the minimum wage. It's far too rigid and unadaptable to changing circumstance, not to mention unlikely to do what it is trying to do.
I'd prefer a stronger social safety net instead, encouraging people to work even really low wage jobs but provide support to make sure they can afford food/housing.
Quote from: frunk on March 19, 2015, 04:11:00 PM
I'd prefer a stronger social safety net instead, encouraging people to work even really low wage jobs but provide support to make sure they can afford food/housing.
Then you'd have people yelling at you for subsidizing fast food franchises. :ph34r:
Quote from: Berkut on March 19, 2015, 03:59:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 02:10:20 PM
Technology will replace many workers, while at the same time creating many new jobs we cannot even imagine today.
I wonder why we can't imagine it. It might be because it's an unexamined article of faith amongst rightists and neoliberals, its sole logical underpinning an inductive process that assumes since the economy created jobs after the collapse of agriculture and industry in the West it will also create jobs following the collapse of service sector work. It would be more persuasive if the goal of capitalism were to create jobs, when of course it isn't. Capitalism, like evolution, is a mindless process that doesn't have a teleological goal at all; the goal of avowed capitalists is to create wealth (for themselves). That it's resulted in wealth generation that has been shared (albeit markedly unevenly) by all sectors of society is a meaningless thing to point out, since capitalism did it entirely by accident. It's even more meaningless, given that the conditions which permitted that have been replaced by new conditions to which you'd prefer to remain willfully blind--not least the end of the mid-century consensus towards a compromise with socialism's economic goals as a way to fight socialism politically at home and abroad. But above all you purposefully fail to comprehend the automation revolution that is underway, comparing it to farmhands moving to cities. In reality it is like nothing previously seen in human affairs. There is no fourth labor sector.
Sadly, the less-educated rightists and the more pie-eyed neoliberals have bought into several decades of propaganda and come to anthropomorphize capitalism as an conscious entity that has a list of priorities, with job creation at the top. All will be well--because their priests tell them so. That this incredibly adolescent worldview can be accepted by idiots is not too surprising, but that it is parroted by otherwise smart people is amazing.
Holy crap, I kind of agree with a lot of this.
WTF is wrong with me?
Well, that makes you, Ide, and Ned Ludd. Soon you guys can build a tree fort and have meetings.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 04:13:00 PM
Then you'd have people yelling at you for subsidizing fast food franchises. :ph34r:
Probably.
Quote from: frunk on March 19, 2015, 04:11:00 PM
I would actually be in favor of getting rid of the minimum wage. It's far too rigid and unadaptable to changing circumstance, not to mention unlikely to do what it is trying to do.
I'd prefer a stronger social safety net instead, encouraging people to work even really low wage jobs but provide support to make sure they can afford food/housing.
Milton Friedman was a commie.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2015, 04:10:26 PM
Nothing's wrong. Ide simply sees with more clarity the problems of the world that is than those of the one he would create.
Huh.
Sweden has no minimum wage and no estate tax, and we are a Socialist hellhole. I hate to think what the US is.
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2015, 04:33:33 PM
Sweden has no minimum wage and no estate tax, and we are a Socialist hellhole. I hate to think what the US is.
Relevant.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2015, 04:10:26 PM
Nothing's wrong. Ide simply sees with more clarity the problems of the world that is than those of the one he would create.
Huh.
"Nothing's wrong" in response to Berkut's handwringing, not as a comment by itself. Just because you see the same problems doesn't mean one buys into your solutions.
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2015, 04:33:33 PM
Sweden has no minimum wage and no estate tax, and we are a Socialist hellhole. I hate to think what the US is.
The US has lower income taxes and no VAT.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2015, 05:32:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2015, 04:33:33 PM
Sweden has no minimum wage and no estate tax, and we are a Socialist hellhole. I hate to think what the US is.
The US has lower income taxes and no VAT.
Taxes when I die matter more than taxes when I'm alive.
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2015, 04:13:48 PM
Well, that makes you, Ide, and Ned Ludd. Soon you guys can build a tree fort and have meetings.
And this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
If you have any thoughts on this topic I would be interested in hearing them. Your claim that only Luddites are concerned about this issue is patently false, it is a fairly common public concern these days.
Quote from: frunk on March 19, 2015, 04:11:00 PM
I'd prefer a stronger social safety net instead, encouraging people to work even really low wage jobs but provide support to make sure they can afford food/housing.
Guaranteed minimum income. :w00t:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2015, 05:30:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2015, 04:10:26 PM
Nothing's wrong. Ide simply sees with more clarity the problems of the world that is than those of the one he would create.
Huh.
"Nothing's wrong" in response to Berkut's handwringing, not as a comment by itself. Just because you see the same problems doesn't mean one buys into your solutions.
No, I got it, it's just food for thought.
Anyway, I really do like a guaranteed basic income. It's even better than a minwage--and because, contrary to frunk's analysis, it would put drastic pressure on employers to raise wages (well, that or automate). Talk about setting a wage floor. If one got a $20k basic income payment, who would go wash dishes for (say) $2 an hour?
Nobody. Certainly not for 40 hours a week.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 03:44:52 PM
I think a lot of folks have opinions about economics that have never taken courses in it or read a book about it, and downward wage rigidity may very well be news to them.
I doubt that anyone has to have taken any economics courses to realize that people don't like to take pay cuts.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 07:15:15 PM
Anyway, I really do like a guaranteed basic income. It's even better than a minwage--and because, contrary to frunk's analysis, it would put drastic pressure on employers to raise wages (well, that or automate). Talk about setting a wage floor. If one got a $20k basic income payment, who would go wash dishes for (say) $2 an hour? Nobody. Certainly not for 40 hours a week.
Who would wash dishes for 25,000 a year? 30,000? Who would do *anything* for that kind of money?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 07:15:15 PM
Anyway, I really do like a guaranteed basic income. It's even better than a minwage--and because, contrary to frunk's analysis, it would put drastic pressure on employers to raise wages (well, that or automate). Talk about setting a wage floor. If one got a $20k basic income payment, who would go wash dishes for (say) $2 an hour? Nobody. Certainly not for 40 hours a week.
Who would wash dishes for 25,000 a year? 30,000? Who would do *anything* for that kind of money?
Unskilled people who want to double their income and illegal immigrants.
So you're thinking that guaranteed income is on top of whatever you earn?
Yes. It would cause inflation, but it would be the best way to maintain incentives for employment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 07:54:35 PM
So you're thinking that guaranteed income is on top of whatever you earn?
That seems to be what they're suggesting.
OTOH, are you suggesting that people won't wash dishes for $30,000/year? 'Cause probably dishwashers make half of that or so if they're lucky. I think they'd be thrilled to get that big of a raise.
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2015, 08:07:35 PM
OTOH, are you suggesting that people won't wash dishes for $30,000/year?
I was suggesting no one would was dishes for 30,000 a year if that meant losing the 20,000 they got for playing XBox and whacking off.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 08:14:59 PM
I was suggesting no one would was dishes for 30,000 a year if that meant losing the 20,000 they got for playing XBox and whacking off.
I specified support could only be used for food/housing. You want a TV, an XBox and a
porn internet connection? Get a job.
And I was thinking the support would be for all citizens, graduated down depending on the amount of income tax paid (rather than a sharp cutoff).
Quote from: frunk on March 19, 2015, 09:50:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 08:14:59 PM
I was suggesting no one would was dishes for 30,000 a year if that meant losing the 20,000 they got for playing XBox and whacking off.
I specified support could only be used for food/housing. You want a TV, an XBox and a porn internet connection? Get a job.
On a moral level, I think this is absolutely acceptable--one of the most obvious objections to free market ideology is that in the presence of biological requirements, there can be no meaningful freedom of choice.
On a policy level, I think it's a mistake, since we want people to get comfortable with the idea of not working and ultimately transition to living off the basic income to the normative state in the face of automation and a reduced demand for labor.
My leftist utopia is a place where the state guarantees that you will survive, and from there what you do with your life is up to your choices and desires. So if you want your xbox or a bigger house, you have to work. Problem is, as people have pointed out, that there are probably few people that desire to be janitors or dishwashers. So essentially, we need people to be unable to make truly free choices in order for our society to work. We need people to be forced to take shitty jobs, to work shitty hours, to do things they don't want to do because they have to pay for food and rent.
Unless we get robots. But then they will rise up against us.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 20, 2015, 02:51:37 AM
Quote from: frunk on March 19, 2015, 09:50:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 08:14:59 PM
I was suggesting no one would was dishes for 30,000 a year if that meant losing the 20,000 they got for playing XBox and whacking off.
I specified support could only be used for food/housing. You want a TV, an XBox and a porn internet connection? Get a job.
On a moral level, I think this is absolutely acceptable--one of the most obvious objections to free market ideology is that in the presence of biological requirements, there can be no meaningful freedom of choice.
On a policy level, I think it's a mistake, since we want people to get comfortable with the idea of not working and ultimately transition to living off the basic income to the normative state in the face of automation and a reduced demand for labor.
Thank you for expressing yourself in your more normal insane manner, and letting me off the hook. Much appreciated.
Half of us should dig ditches, and the other half will fill in those ditches thus dug. A bold plan!
Quote from: Ideologue on March 20, 2015, 04:11:12 PM
Half of us should dig ditches, and the other half will fill in those ditches thus dug. A bold plan!
PROGRESS
Quote from: Ideologue on March 20, 2015, 04:11:12 PM
Half of us should dig ditches, and the other half will fill in those ditches thus dug. A bold plan!
And we could all sleep on level ground, eat level ground, and wear level ground. A true workers' paradise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2015, 04:14:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 20, 2015, 04:11:12 PM
Half of us should dig ditches, and the other half will fill in those ditches thus dug. A bold plan!
And we could all sleep on level ground, eat level ground, and wear level ground. A true workers' paradise.
A total ending of Hierarchy.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2015, 04:18:15 PM
A total ending of Hierarchy.
Filling in is a lot cushier than digging.
Should happiness be mandatory?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2015, 04:14:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 20, 2015, 04:11:12 PM
Half of us should dig ditches, and the other half will fill in those ditches thus dug. A bold plan!
And we could all sleep on level ground, eat level ground, and wear level ground. A true workers' paradise.
I was making fun of Berkut. CONTEXT CLUES.
Quit stalking me.
I'm going out. You people are exhausting.
Somebody please slap Ide.
I can light him on fire. That's like slapping.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2015, 01:33:13 PM
I can light him on fire. That's like slapping.
Why are you so criminal?
Ide deserve an slap, not to be burnt to death. Come on.
Interesting results that I would not have predicted. I would have thought the responses would have skewed more right than left.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 01:40:23 PM
Interesting results that I would not have predicted. I would have thought the responses would have skewed more right than left.
Why? Most people here are lefties.
There are not many far gone lefties, but most people are left of center.
Even Berkut is lefty these days.
The traitor...
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 01:40:23 PM
Interesting results that I would not have predicted. I would have thought the responses would have skewed more right than left.
I would have expected more of a leftward skew than these results show. Seems like most of the Languish ire is directed rightward, anyway.
Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2015, 01:42:11 PM
Why? Most people here are lefties.
There are not many far gone lefties, but most people are left of center.
Even Berkut is lefty these days.
The traitor...
You have to understand that to Canadians and Euros we are all right wing Americans. People have left the board for that reason.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2015, 01:43:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 01:40:23 PM
Interesting results that I would not have predicted. I would have thought the responses would have skewed more right than left.
I would have expected more of a leftward skew than these results show. Seems like most of the Languish ire is directed rightward, anyway.
I don't know what you are talking about I have zero ire for you.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2015, 01:43:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 01:40:23 PM
Interesting results that I would not have predicted. I would have thought the responses would have skewed more right than left.
I would have expected more of a leftward skew than these results show. Seems like most of the Languish ire is directed rightward, anyway.
Yeah, I also would have expected more of a leftward result on the poll. I think maybe some of the topics discussed are more like outliers that people have stronger opinions on, while probably many of us would agree on so much else.
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2015, 01:37:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2015, 01:33:13 PM
I can light him on fire. That's like slapping.
Why are you so criminal?
Ide deserve an slap, not to be burnt to death. Come on.
Ide wishes to be lit of fire.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2015, 04:02:42 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2015, 01:37:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2015, 01:33:13 PM
I can light him on fire. That's like slapping.
Why are you so criminal?
Ide deserve an slap, not to be burnt to death. Come on.
Ide wishes to be lit of fire.
After all, "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!" ;)
- Terry Pratchett
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
My new definition of moderate is someone who doesn't get spazzed out inordinately.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
You cannot serve two masters.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
Hypothetically if both parties are far right what does that do to your definition?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 04:46:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
Hypothetically if both parties are far right what does that do to your definition?
:huh: He didn't give a definition for anything.
It wasn't a general definition, but quite specific to the present day Republican and Democratic parties. I would consider someone calling them both far right parties to either be a far lefty or simply confused.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 03:24:41 PM
It might be because it's an unexamined article of faith amongst rightists and neoliberals, its sole logical underpinning an inductive process that assumes since the economy created jobs after the collapse of agriculture and industry in the West it will also create jobs following the collapse of service sector work. .
It's one of the most examined questions in growth economics. For 200 years people have been making predictions that labor saving technology or capital intensification will inevitably result in enduring declines in employment and they all have turned out wrong. There is a ton of empirical studies addressing this issue, which are being added to all the time. Economics is not a hard science and empirical analysis of social facts are not conclusively proof for all time, but as economic theories go, the rejection of the lump of labor fallacy in the context of automation is one of the most robust results in all of economics. It is about as far from being an "article of faith" as exists in economics.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 05:17:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 04:46:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
Hypothetically if both parties are far right what does that do to your definition?
:huh: He didn't give a definition for anything.
I see, he merely stated his view of what the word moderate means to an American and what the word means to many foreigners. No, not a definition. More like a description of meaning.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
And FWIW, here are my results from the quiz at https://www.politicalcompass.org/
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=8.25&soc=-2.05)
:w00t: QUIZ!
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-6.88&soc=-4.05)
Quote from: Ideologue on March 20, 2015, 02:51:37 AM
On a policy level, I think it's a mistake, since we want people to get comfortable with the idea of not working and ultimately transition to living off the basic income to the normative state in the face of automation and a reduced demand for labor.
I think I see where you may be going awry.
The "demand for labor" is not some immutable fact of the universe, following deterministically from a set of technological capabilities. It is a social phenomenon, influenced by the structure of productive relations and culture as well as technology (and the business cycle of course). In the world of Keynes' Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, it is presumed there will (or should) exist a dominant preference for a certain kind of cultured leisure, such that technological improvements in productivity will tend to increase leisure per head and constrain market labor demand. That future is one where people are content to have their consumption rise more slowly then the rate of productivity growth, and take the excess as leisure.
This is arguably an attractive vision, more attractive then our reality, but it is more normative than descriptive. People seem rather stubbornly to prefer increasing their consumption -- even if it is apparently frivolous or self-defeating like chasing ever more dear positional and prestige goods -- rather then their leisure. But there is no reason it absolutely HAS to be that way - we could have a future whereby people maintain standards of living greatly exceeding historical norms and yet enjoy much more leisure time. And it could be argued that outcome should be supported socially and politically. But that is different from claiming that it actually WILL happen, much less that it inevitably MUST happen.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 03:24:41 PM
I wonder why we can't imagine it. It might be because it's an unexamined article of faith amongst rightists and neoliberals, its sole logical underpinning an inductive process that assumes since the economy created jobs after the collapse of agriculture and industry in the West it will also create jobs following the collapse of service sector work. It would be more persuasive if the goal of capitalism were to create jobs, when of course it isn't. Capitalism, like evolution, is a mindless process that doesn't have a teleological goal at all; the goal of avowed capitalists is to create wealth (for themselves). That it's resulted in wealth generation that has been shared (albeit markedly unevenly) by all sectors of society is a meaningless thing to point out, since capitalism did it entirely by accident. It's even more meaningless, given that the conditions which permitted that have been replaced by new conditions to which you'd prefer to remain willfully blind--not least the end of the mid-century consensus towards a compromise with socialism's economic goals as a way to fight socialism politically at home and abroad. But above all you purposefully fail to comprehend the automation revolution that is underway, comparing it to farmhands moving to cities. In reality it is like nothing previously seen in human affairs. There is no fourth labor sector.
Sadly, the less-educated rightists and the more pie-eyed neoliberals have bought into several decades of propaganda and come to anthropomorphize capitalism as an conscious entity that has a list of priorities, with job creation at the top. All will be well--because their priests tell them so. That this incredibly adolescent worldview can be accepted by idiots is not too surprising, but that it is parroted by otherwise smart people is amazing.
So why do we need jobs?
Set up a guaranteed basic income, a three day working week and tax capital/wealth. I really don't get the angst over robots. Humans are more than labour, we have the chance for utopia. So, why not?
QuoteIt works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
Americans fetishise their prelapsarian centre to an alarming degree.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 05:51:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
And FWIW, here are my results from the quiz at https://www.politicalcompass.org/
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=8.25&soc=-2.05)
:w00t: QUIZ!
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-6.88&soc=-4.05)
Beaten, I think. :P
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-6.5&soc=-7.9)
I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian :Embarrass:
Because being an authoritarian is such a hoot? :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2015, 06:36:53 PM
Because being an authoritarian is such a hoot? :lol:
It ain't all bad :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 06:46:39 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2015, 06:36:53 PM
Because being an authoritarian is such a hoot? :lol:
It ain't all bad :P
Its all fun and games until a few million die when their farms become owned by the collective.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian :Embarrass:
And I'm disappointed in you, too.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 23, 2015, 06:50:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian :Embarrass:
And I'm disappointed in you, too.
I'd expect nothing less :lol:
I think they mistake authoritarian for Christian Right :x
Quote from: The Larch on March 23, 2015, 06:25:23 PM
Beaten, I think. :P
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-6.5&soc=-7.9)
Well, you passed me for the lowest y-score that's been posted yet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 06:52:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 23, 2015, 06:50:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian :Embarrass:
And I'm disappointed in you, too.
I'd expect nothing less :lol:
I think they mistake authoritarian for Christian Right :x
Indeed. Like I said, it's basically broken. We're both more or less totalitarian. :hug:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2015, 05:53:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 20, 2015, 02:51:37 AM
On a policy level, I think it's a mistake, since we want people to get comfortable with the idea of not working and ultimately transition to living off the basic income to the normative state in the face of automation and a reduced demand for labor.
I think I see where you may be going awry.
The "demand for labor" is not some immutable fact of the universe, following deterministically from a set of technological capabilities. It is a social phenomenon, influenced by the structure of productive relations and culture as well as technology (and the business cycle of course). In the world of Keynes' Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, it is presumed there will (or should) exist a dominant preference for a certain kind of cultured leisure, such that technological improvements in productivity will tend to increase leisure per head and constrain market labor demand. That future is one where people are content to have their consumption rise more slowly then the rate of productivity growth, and take the excess as leisure.
This is arguably an attractive vision, more attractive then our reality, but it is more normative than descriptive. People seem rather stubbornly to prefer increasing their consumption -- even if it is apparently frivolous or self-defeating like chasing ever more dear positional and prestige goods -- rather then their leisure. But there is no reason it absolutely HAS to be that way - we could have a future whereby people maintain standards of living greatly exceeding historical norms and yet enjoy much more leisure time. And it could be argued that outcome should be supported socially and politically. But that is different from claiming that it actually WILL happen, much less that it inevitably MUST happen.
I certainly understand what you're saying. In fact, I think that preferring leisure to consumption sets me apart from most people. I've posted here before that as long as I have enough income to provide us with the necessities of modern life (which, let's face it, in American pretty much includes an automobile) plus enough to fund my internet, gaming, and reading habits, I'm pretty well satisfied.
I don't have a salaried job anymore; I work for an hourly wage. And frankly, I doubt that I'll ever seek a salaried position again. I'd rather make what I make working 40 hours a week than make twice as much but have to work twice as many hours.
Quote from: dps on March 23, 2015, 08:11:15 PM
I don't have a salaried job anymore; I work for an hourly wage. And frankly, I doubt that I'll ever seek a salaried position again. I'd rather make what I make working 40 hours a week than make twice as much but have to work twice as many hours.
That sounds like a no-brainer. The question is, would you work twice as many hours for 3 or 4 times as much pay?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2015, 04:12:48 PM
My new definition of moderate is someone who doesn't get spazzed out inordinately.
:(
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian :Embarrass:
Yeah you definitely would have put me under house arrest and stopped me from fleeing to Normandy.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:20:04 PM
:(
I'm serious. The one constant at the political extremes is the amount of outrage. See if you can think of anyone it doesn't work for.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2015, 08:21:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:20:04 PM
:(
I'm serious. The one constant at the political extremes is the amount of outrage. See if you can think of anyone it doesn't work for.
I actually agree with that. I was just sad I failed to fit that definition recently :P
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:22:35 PM
I actually agree with that. I was just sad I failed to fit that definition recently :P
You can choose the person you wish to be. :pope:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 08:14:55 PM
Quote from: dps on March 23, 2015, 08:11:15 PM
I don't have a salaried job anymore; I work for an hourly wage. And frankly, I doubt that I'll ever seek a salaried position again. I'd rather make what I make working 40 hours a week than make twice as much but have to work twice as many hours.
That sounds like a no-brainer. The question is, would you work twice as many hours for 3 or 4 times as much pay?
No, I don't think I'd work twice as many hours for any amount of pay.
Depending on the circumstances, I might be willing to work 50 hours a week for twice as much pay, but 50-55 hours is about my limit now, I think. Much more than that, and you don't have time to enjoy the things your increased income can buy, so what's the point? And another problem with a salaried position is that even if you're only supposed to work 45-50 hours, lots of time you end up working well beyond that.
In all the salaried jobs I've had, I was supposed to work about 48 hours a week. In one of them, that was actually about what I normally worked. In another, I probably averaged about 60 hours a week. And in the others, I worked 80-90 hours most weeks. It wasn't worth it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2015, 08:21:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:20:04 PM
:(
I'm serious. The one constant at the political extremes is the amount of outrage. See if you can think of anyone it doesn't work for.
I have seen people be outraged about pretty much everything.
That's bullshit and you know it, Raz :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2015, 08:28:57 AM
That's bullshit and you know it, Raz :angry:
I'm outraged that you said this. :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2015, 08:28:57 AM
That's bullshit and you know it, Raz :angry:
SHUT THE FUCK UP, GOPTARD
Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2015, 08:55:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2015, 08:28:57 AM
That's bullshit and you know it, Raz :angry:
I'm outraged that you said this. :angry:
And thus another phony moderate is exposed as a disgusting fake moderate! We will drive all you fake moderates from our ranks or die trying!
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2015, 08:28:57 AM
That's bullshit and you know it, Raz :angry:
Nah, he's right. Some people will get worked up over anything.
I would agree with the general idea that political extremists get overwrought about anything relating to their political views, but outrage isn't limited to political extremists. Look at Timmay--he's not an extremist politically, but almost every news article he posts shocks or outrages or disgusts him.
Okay now THAT pissed me off :ultra:
I'm so far left, I've come back around on the right. It's the syndicalist in me.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin. Like Berkut.
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOJ6J_nylLo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOJ6J_nylLo)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 24, 2015, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOJ6J_nylLo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOJ6J_nylLo)
It I'm baffled that people vote for this guy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 24, 2015, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOJ6J_nylLo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOJ6J_nylLo)
:pinch:
I don't see Siege as a supporter of a scumbag like Bibi, though. Maybe someone to the right of Bibi, but not Bibi himself.
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin. Like Berkut.
You know what I find weird? People who call flip-flops thongs. That's just asking for trouble.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 05:40:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 05:17:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 04:46:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
Hypothetically if both parties are far right what does that do to your definition?
:huh: He didn't give a definition for anything.
I see, he merely stated his view of what the word moderate means to an American and what the word means to many foreigners. No, not a definition. More like a description of meaning.
I see, so you are arguing that if he had said "to an American, June is typically a warm month" then he would be saying that the definition of June is "a warm month." The word "definition" is used weirdly by you Canadians (and no, I am not defining "weird people" as "Canadians")! :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on March 24, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
You know what I find weird? People who call flip-flops thongs. That's just asking for trouble.
Still pockets of those people that have not gotten the memo.
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin. Like Berkut.
Which is kind of funny, since my over-riding theme throughout my time at Languish has been to point out that the partisan's don't actually have principles at all, beyond "my tribe".
It is, in fact, the complete lack of actual principles that is, so far as I can tell, required to be a Party member that means I can never really embrace either party truly.
You, for example, are completely lacking in actual principles. I've never once seen you call out your own party for violating it's own principles.
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin. Like Berkut.
Really? Berkut is your big example there?
To me a moderate is a guy who voted for Cruz and then regretted it. Like Valmy.
:D
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:42:59 AM
You, for example, are completely lacking in actual principles. I've never once seen you call out your own party for violating it's own principles.
Seeb is a bad target for this critique, since a big part of his schtick is blasting quote unquote RINOs for not being conservative enough.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2015, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:42:59 AM
You, for example, are completely lacking in actual principles. I've never once seen you call out your own party for violating it's own principles.
Seeb is a bad target for this critique, since a big part of his schtick is blasting quote unquote RINOs for not being conservative enough.
Not being radical enough doesn't count as "calling out your own party" in the context of what I am talking about...
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2015, 09:02:02 PM
I see, so you are arguing that if he had said "to an American, June is typically a warm month" then he would be saying that the definition of June is "a warm month." The word "definition" is used weirdly by you Canadians (and no, I am not defining "weird people" as "Canadians")! :lol:
No
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2015, 09:49:47 AM
To me a moderate is a guy who voted for Cruz and then regretted it. Like Valmy.
He said he was a 'common sense' Conservative :(
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2015, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:42:59 AM
You, for example, are completely lacking in actual principles. I've never once seen you call out your own party for violating it's own principles.
Seeb is a bad target for this critique, since a big part of his schtick is blasting quote unquote RINOs for not being conservative enough.
And hammer the 'establishment' for selling out. He is an ideologue more than a partisan I think.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 10:54:23 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2015, 09:49:47 AM
To me a moderate is a guy who voted for Cruz and then regretted it. Like Valmy.
He said he was a 'common sense' Conservative :(
He is a politician and his lips were moving....
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2015, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:42:59 AM
You, for example, are completely lacking in actual principles. I've never once seen you call out your own party for violating it's own principles.
Seeb is a bad target for this critique, since a big part of his schtick is blasting quote unquote RINOs for not being conservative enough.
And hammer the 'establishment' for selling out. He is an ideologue more than a partisan I think.
Partisan in this sense is not allegiance to the members of the party, but rather to the concept of the party. The most typical complaint about this type of partisanship from the rank and file is almost always that their representatives are not nearlly as batshit insane as they are, and sometimes that even rises to the level of demanding that the insufficiently pure be purged (see Tea Party today and the rejection of Blue Dog Dems several years ago).
So siege demanding that the political reps of his party be even more dogmatically narrow minded doesn't run contrary to my point.
If he was truly ideologically principled, he would be willing to call out his party when not only are they not batshit crazy enough for him, but even when they are simply wrong and the Dems are right, like the entire Benghazi abortion, for example.
Am I the only one who finds it interesting that, even as small as this place is, the self-reporting's taken on a pretty neat bell curve?
The self-reporting is inaccurate. The other 1s are neoliberals.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 25, 2015, 12:32:17 PM
Am I the only one who finds it interesting that, even as small as this place is, the self-reporting's taken on a pretty neat bell curve?
Yes.
That pattern looks more like a suspension bridge than a bell.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 25, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
That pattern looks more like a suspension bridge than a bell.
I think "bell curve" doesn't mean the same to the math-ignorant as it does to the math-savvy. The pattern here is not at all a bell curve.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-5.13&soc=-3.28)
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:42:59 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin. Like Berkut.
Which is kind of funny, since my over-riding theme throughout my time at Languish has been to point out that the partisan's don't actually have principles at all, beyond "my tribe".
It is, in fact, the complete lack of actual principles that is, so far as I can tell, required to be a Party member that means I can never really embrace either party truly.
You, for example, are completely lacking in actual principles. I've never once seen you call out your own party for violating it's own principles.
I do. I called out Arik Sharon for giving away Gaza, Mitt Romney for being just another democrat, Bibi Netanyahu for not expelling all the arabs, George W Bush for not fixing the mexican wall, George H Bush for raising taxes, Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus for having an anti-semite like James Baker in his administration, etc.
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:45:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:42:59 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin. Like Berkut.
Which is kind of funny, since my over-riding theme throughout my time at Languish has been to point out that the partisan's don't actually have principles at all, beyond "my tribe".
It is, in fact, the complete lack of actual principles that is, so far as I can tell, required to be a Party member that means I can never really embrace either party truly.
You, for example, are completely lacking in actual principles. I've never once seen you call out your own party for violating it's own principles.
I do. I called out Arik Sharon for giving away Gaza, Mitt Romney for being just another democrat, Bibi Netanyahu for not expelling all the arabs, George W Bush for not fixing the mexican wall, George H Bush for raising taxes, Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus for having an anti-semite like James Baker in his administration, etc.
Yeah, lamenting that your party isn't as batshit insane as you are isn't what I am talking about.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 03:48:15 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:45:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:42:59 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2015, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
It works both ways. It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.
To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.
To me a moderate is guy without principles that flip flop at the drop of a coin. Like Berkut.
Which is kind of funny, since my over-riding theme throughout my time at Languish has been to point out that the partisan's don't actually have principles at all, beyond "my tribe".
It is, in fact, the complete lack of actual principles that is, so far as I can tell, required to be a Party member that means I can never really embrace either party truly.
You, for example, are completely lacking in actual principles. I've never once seen you call out your own party for violating it's own principles.
I do. I called out Arik Sharon for giving away Gaza, Mitt Romney for being just another democrat, Bibi Netanyahu for not expelling all the arabs, George W Bush for not fixing the mexican wall, George H Bush for raising taxes, Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus for having an anti-semite like James Baker in his administration, etc.
Yeah, lamenting that your party isn't as batshit insane as you are isn't what I am talking about.
Then speak english so I understand.
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Fortunately Moses saved you from that fate.
Zing!
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Fortunately Moses saved you from that fate.
:lmfao:
That gets laughs and my Antinous joke got fucking nothing? :(
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Fortunately Moses saved you from that fate.
:lol:
Awesome. :D
Quote from: The Brain on March 25, 2015, 04:39:54 PM
That gets laughs and my Antinous joke got fucking nothing? :(
languish delivers.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Fortunately Moses saved you from that fate.
What you mean. Most jews are lefties.
Being jew has nothing to do with being left or right, you racist bigot.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Fortunately Moses saved you from that fate.
:lmfao:
Stop laughing at racist jokes.
Its not even a joke.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2015, 02:43:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Fortunately Moses saved you from that fate.
What you mean. Most jews are lefties.
Being jew has nothing to do with being left or right, you racist bigot.
:secret: Moses saved you from Egypt, aka the land of the Nile.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2015, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2015, 02:43:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Fortunately Moses saved you from that fate.
What you mean. Most jews are lefties.
Being jew has nothing to do with being left or right, you racist bigot.
:secret: Moses saved you from Egypt, aka the land of the Nile.
So?
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2015, 03:33:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2015, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2015, 02:43:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
At least I do not live in the land of deniel like all the lefties do.
Fortunately Moses saved you from that fate.
What you mean. Most jews are lefties.
Being jew has nothing to do with being left or right, you racist bigot.
:secret: Moses saved you from Egypt, aka the land of the Nile.
So?
Land of denial.
Land of De Nile.
Get it?
Jewel?
Land of De Niro?
You guys are weird.
The Nile does not sound like Denial.
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:03:02 PM
You guys are weird.
The Nile does not sound like Denial.
Translate it into English, and it does.
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:03:02 PM
You guys are weird.
The Nile does not sound like Denial.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/05/11/denial-not-river/ (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/05/11/denial-not-river/)
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:03:02 PM
You guys are weird.
The Nile does not sound like Denial.
In ebonics "the" sounds like "de."
Not just ebonics. Other accents, too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2015, 01:22:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:03:02 PM
You guys are weird.
The Nile does not sound like Denial.
In ebonics "the" sounds like "de."
In English, too.
Quote from: The Brain on March 25, 2015, 04:39:54 PM
That gets laughs and my Antinous joke got fucking nothing? :(
I was laughing too hard to post a smilie
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 09:02:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 25, 2015, 04:39:54 PM
That gets laughs and my Antinous joke got fucking nothing? :(
I was laughing too hard to post a smilie
You are very kind to say that.