What the Far Left has that the Far Right does not.

[Tmy]

Changeability! (is that even a word?).

I know kooks on both ends, in theory I think its easier to change the minds of Far Leftists since their beliefs are not grounded in stagnet religist teachings. The far right views usually trace back to the bible. How can you argue with "god says so."?

[Dancing David]

beards and chicks that don't wear bras.

[shemp]

We have bigger johnsons.

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by shemp
We have bigger johnsons.

Who's we? The chicks that don't wear bras?

[Tmy]

I can deal wh chicks with hairy arms (ok I cant) but what freaks me out is religious zealots in office. Its like they dont care about the will of the people, its the will of God they serve!

GW is starting to become one of these guys. Hes too jesus freaky. And hes not even hiding it! Hes got it bad!!

[shemp]

Originally posted by Beancounter


Who's we? The chicks that don't wear bras?

In this neck of the woods, we have always understood "johnson" to refer to a certain male reproductive organ. If "johnson" means a female mammary gland in your neck of the woods, I'll edit my statement above to make it clear:

"We have bigger weiners."

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by shemp


In this neck of the woods, we have always understood "johnson" to refer to a certain male reproductive organ. If "johnson" means a female mammary gland in your neck of the woods, I'll edit my statement above to make it clear:

"We have bigger weiners."

I think he was suggesting that the women you know have penises.

[shemp]

Originally posted by c0rbin


I think he was suggesting that the women you know have penises.

I considered that angle, but since he is from South Africa, perhaps the word carries a different meaning there. I just wanted to be crystal clear about this extremely important topic.

[evilgoldtoesock]

We're harder to bat against.

[American]

Forgiving the generalizations of "far left" and "far right" (they are not linear or mathematically opposed to each other), you are correct, but not for the reasons you think.

You probably think the left's changability is related to an acceptance to analyze new ideas, and the right is simply closed-minded. This explanation is true, but irrelevant.

There is a Platonic truth that exists, having nothing to do with religion or right-wing motivation. That truth resides in Constitutional ideals: I can say what I want, I have a right to privacy, self-defense, and my property belongs to me, not to government or to my neighbor's school children or to my neighbor's school childrens' fat-ass substitute teacher.

All of those ideals are completely offensive to far-left thinking. Their methods and reasons are, like scientific knowledge, in constant flux and re-evaluating itself. Why? Precisely because they are wrong and unwilling to accept the single truthful conclusion that right-wing ideology is correct and good, and their own abysmal outcome in life and government speaks for itself; they suck. It's why lefties are so characterized as foolish children, and the right as angry white men. Those stereotypes are founded in truth.

Yes, the right is unwilling to change. What's north of the North Pole?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by American
All of those ideals are completely offensive to far-left thinking.

Was Elton John offended when you said he totally copied REO Speedwagon (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32963)?

[daenku32]

Originally posted by American
Forgiving the generalizations of "far left" and "far right" (they are not linear or mathematically opposed to each other), you are correct, but not for the reasons you think.

You probably think the left's changability is related to an acceptance to analyze new ideas, and the right is simply closed-minded. This explanation is true, but irrelevant.

There is a Platonic truth that exists, having nothing to do with religion or right-wing motivation. That truth resides in Constitutional ideals: I can say what I want, I have a right to privacy, self-defense, and my property belongs to me, not to government or to my neighbor's school children or to my neighbor's school childrens' fat-ass substitute teacher.

All of those ideals are completely offensive to far-left thinking. Their methods and reasons are, like scientific knowledge, in constant flux and re-evaluating itself. Why? Precisely because they are wrong and unwilling to accept the single truthful conclusion that right-wing ideology is correct and good, and their own abysmal outcome in life and government speaks for itself; they suck. It's why lefties are so characterized as foolish children, and the right as angry white men. Those stereotypes are founded in truth.

Yes, the right is unwilling to change. What's north of the North Pole?

So American, is there anyone in Washington that actually represents your values as you listed them?

Or are you just an 'fringe' element of American society?

[demon]

Tmy:
"Changeability! (is that even a word?).
I know kooks on both ends, in theory I think its easier to change the minds of Far Leftists since their beliefs are not grounded in stagnet religist teachings. The far right views usually trace back to the bible. How can you argue with "god says so."?"


My experience with the American Left is fairly limited, but I have some experience with the Left in the UK so that`s what I`ll make a few comments on.
Right now, issues about "change" and mobilisation are being thrashed out with, for example, the European Social Forum (ESF), within the Respect party and the STWC (Stop The War Coalition), but not just there, even on internet forums like this for example.

On the left, in-fighting usually takes on one or more of the following forms:

1) Refusal to compromise ridiculously pure political dogma - a major failing of far left groups.
The writings of the illustrious dead become an occasion for religious devotion to the thoughts of others, with no hint at the irony this involves – on the lines of “I am a radical; hence I only think thoughts he or she has told me to.�
Of course, this ignores the spirit of Marxism; Marx's favourite saying was after all "Doubt all things". For Trotskyists and Leninist groups, the presence of these people is the equivalent of the influence of the religious nutters in the US, for example; so we have our Southern Babblers too, I`m afraid.
Sad to say, there is *no* arguing with such people as they are high on sheep-like faith, for goodness sake and hence I, for one, don`t take them seriously in any "real life" encounters or on the internet. I make no apology for mentioning Monty Python’s "Life of Brian" here as it brought this out well, as I am sure you`ll appreciate.

2) A refusal to modify a well-trodden approach to cherished single-issue causes (green politics, animal rights, feminism, gay rights, etc.), coupled with a failure to see all such "single-issues" as different aspects of the system as a whole. This divides the left - the rest is history.

3) Fighting past battles, of little significance to anyone else on the planet.

4) Hanging on to illusions over the "official left" - witness the recent in-fighting over Unison (The Public Service Trade Union), and the STWC, etc. In the US, we saw this over Nader but you`ll know more about that than me.

5) Good, old-fashioned, crass stupidity - certain activists would rather be big fish in small ponds than submit their egos to democratic control. Here, the personality disorder of those so afflicted obliterates their "reasonableness". In fact, this might prove be a new psychological disorder: instead of Marxism, say, we have Me-ism. Instead of activism, we have attitude.
Witness the sectarian response to, say, the ANL (Anti Nazi League), Respect and the STWC. All SWP (Socialist Workers party) oriented initiatives, I grant you; but, whatever one thinks of the SWP, these are among the *few* successes/quasi-successes we have had on the left in the last couple of generations. But no good! The parochial sectarian just stomps off in a sulk. Divide and fume….

6) Connected with the above: an inflated opinion of one's own influence; so we might have two activists who presume to issue demands on behalf of the international proletariat from the comfort of a cafe in trendy Camden. From such a lofty perspective, prophets like this are in no mood to listen to anyone else. In fact, quite the reverse; they see other lefties as the real enemy. (See point one above about the "'Life of Brian"!).
Hence, these sages spend more time attacking (physically or verbally), their erstwhile "comrades" than they do the system they profess to hate. The old WRP (Workers Revolutionary Party) and the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party), were good at this; the "Sparts" are hardy perennials. (I am sure we can all name names here.)

There are other issues that divide the left, but they are variations, I think, on the above - just expressed in different ways, at diverse times, and in other political milieu.

On a tangent, I`m just wondering if the killing of the three Black Watch troops (and more to come probably), is going to mobilize the nation (UK) once again. At times I wonder about toppling Blair. Is it the case that British people have not given him his cards because they have no idea what would happen next?

I wish things were so simple.

On second thoughts, I am glad they are not. If they were, human beings would be even easier to control than they are now. The fact that neither you, nor I, nor TB (the virulent strain infecting the UK at present), nor anyone else can predict the way the population will behave means that we will all constantly be taken by surprise.

On the down side, this can and does demoralise us. On the up side, it means that our leaders begin to believe their own ******** once more and over-reach themselves. *That* is predictable, if anything is; they always do it. This can often prompt a huge response. We saw it over the Poll Tax in the UK in the early 1990's. You see this happening all over the planet: Serbia, Georgia, Venezuela, Bolivia, France, Spain, Argentina, Indonesia....

Indeed, you could see this happening *internationally* at the beginning of 2003. I am sure "our rulers" were totally taken aback by the extent and depth of the opposition they faced. So were we; who could have predicted, say, 12 months earlier, that upwards of 20 million people would demonstrate around the world on the same day about the same issue and over a rather "insignificant country" in the middle of the desert? And that it would continue for months?

So, the fact that the behaviour of the masses is unpredictable works, in the end, in our favour. If no one can predict it, then (in want of a better term), "the establisment" or "powers that be" cannot forestall it when and if the Blunkett hits the fan.
It always catches them by surprise. The thing is: is the left ready to mobilise things when this happens? Often not, because we either begin to believe their bull(censored) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870531930#rule8), too, in the meantime (and some of us start to blame the masses or show inordinate faith in one of their own ilk, like Kerry), or we fight among ourselves!

"Our rulers" then laugh all the way to the next dodgy dossier.

[The Don]

To paraphrase the words of Ian Dowie:

The left has "bouncebackability"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bouncebackability&defid=823530

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
Changeability! (is that even a word?).

I know kooks on both ends, in theory I think its easier to change the minds of Far Leftists since their beliefs are not grounded in stagnet religist teachings. The far right views usually trace back to the bible. How can you argue with "god says so."?

I think that this is a gross generalization. It is not clear to me that being "conservative" necesarily implies any religious belief whatsoever. That it does amoung GW and Co. is not relevant.

[Ed]

Originally posted by demon
Tmy:
"Changeability! (is that even a word?).
Indeed, you could see this happening *internationally* at the beginning of 2003. I am sure "our rulers" were totally taken aback by the extent and depth of the opposition they faced. So were we; who could have predicted, say, 12 months earlier, that upwards of 20 million people would demonstrate around the world on the same day about the same issue and over a rather "insignificant country" in the middle of the desert? And that it would continue for months?

.

And I wonder whether if the fix were not in in France and Russia and they put the weight of their state controlled media behind an Iraqi invasion what would have happened.