Left Vs Right Is Soooooooooo 1970's

[Starshark]

Reading through these threads, it's struck me how stupid the whole left vs right thing is. I thought we moved on from polar divison of political camps years ago.

Think about it. I thought Shane K would be considered 'right-wing' because of his views on the right to bear arms. Yet I've seen others call him lefty. People who are supposedly in his own political camp don't agree with him.

This is why left vs right is problematic. You are trying to divide a whole spectrum of opinion into two, with a big fence right down the middle. Isn't it time we all showed a bit of maturity, and found better insults and 'harrumphs' than this?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Starshark
Reading through these threads, it's struck me how stupid the whole left vs right thing is. I thought we moved on from polar divison of political camps years ago.

Think about it. I thought Shane K would be considered 'right-wing' because of his views on the right to bear arms. Yet I've seen others call him lefty. People who are supposedly in his own political camp don't agree with him.

This is why left vs right is problematic. You are trying to divide a whole spectrum of opinion into two, with a big fence right down the middle. Isn't it time we all showed a bit of maturity, and found better insults and 'harrumphs' than this?

Isn't it time you studied a little more political science before you dismiss such divisions?

For your information, Shane K is a Libertarian, with a capital "L," as opposed to with a little "l," as I am. This means he is neither left nor right, as libertarians hold dear the values protected and rights enunciated in the US Constitution. The protections of some of these rights are regarded as leftist, and of others as rightist. One of the most prominent tenets of libertarianism is the minimal intrusion of government into the daily lives of citizens.

BTW, I'm not sure anyone is truly in Shane's political camp. He seems to be in his own camp altogether. I get the impression he has some awfully radical views on the role of government, as sometimes it appears he would be happiest without any at all.

AS

[Starshark]

You want me to read up more on political science before dismissing such divisions, before going on to say that you and Shane K are two such people to whom such divisions don't apply.

Confused? I know I am!

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Starshark
You want me to read up more on political science before dismissing such divisions, before going on to say that you and Shane K are two such people to whom such divisions don't apply.

Confused? I know I am!

You demonstrated your lack of appreciation for political distinctions by calling Shane K, an admitted and vociferous Libertarian, a right-winger. You exhibited a lack of understanding that Libertarians share some views with the right, and some with the left, and some they have alone.

I'm telling you it is folly to dismiss the left and the right as outmoded. They aren't. Polticial parties and divisions have a very long history, and likely have quite a future ahead of them as well.

Somehow, you think I am proving your point, which was ill-conceived in the first place.

AS

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
You demonstrated your lack of appreciation for political distinctions by calling Shane K, an admitted and vociferous Libertarian, a right-winger.

No, he said Shane's views on gun control could be considered right wing...

You exhibited a lack of understanding that Libertarians share some views with the right, and some with the left, and some they have alone.

Surely that's his entire point - that a simple right/left division is insufficient to understand modern politics?

I'm telling you it is folly to dismiss the left and the right as outmoded. They aren't. Polticial parties and divisions have a very long history, and likely have quite a future ahead of them as well.

Absolutely, but as Starshark implied, left/right divisions are not the whole story.

Somehow, you think I am proving your point, which was ill-conceived in the first place.

I think you missed his original point completely. And nothing in his post deserves this much vitriol.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I think you missed his original point completely. And nothing in his post deserves this much vitriol.

Vitriol? Since when is calling someone's point "ill conceived" vitriolic?

Jeez, stop being so knee-jerk defensive.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


No, he said Shane's views on gun control could be considered right wing...



Look again at Starshark's first post in this thread. Now, tell me he didn't call Shane a right-winger.

You apparently just felt compelled to try to put me in my place. Do you feel better?

AS

[Victor Danilchenko]

This whole thread is stupid. Nobody really believes that the political spectrum is polarized, with each individual falling into one camp or the other -- Starshark implies that this bizarre delusion is commonly held on this forum, but such is simply not true AFAICT.

For convenience, we label specific positions on specific subjects as "left" or "right", and many people tend to hols predominantly "left" or predominantly "right" views on specific issues; but I don't think anyone but JK seriously believes that you can classify people as easily as you can classify specific positions.

[Aardvark_DK]

Victor, you are obviously an evil communist-atheist who are going straight to Hell!

[Q-Source]

I am a keynesian thinker

[shanek]

Originally posted by Starshark
Think about it. I thought Shane K would be considered 'right-wing' because of his views on the right to bear arms. Yet I've seen others call him lefty. People who are supposedly in his own political camp don't agree with him.

Because I'm not a "right-winger." Nor am I a "left-winger." That's why I'm a big fan of the Nolan Chart—it shows that people like me are off-axis from the traditional left-right model.

(Ironically, I just posted an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal on the difference between libertarians and conservatives.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
BTW, I'm not sure anyone is truly in Shane's political camp. He seems to be in his own camp altogether.

Even if that were true, what would be wrong with that?

But I am, for the most part, in agreement with most of the Libertarians I know.

I get the impression he has some awfully radical views on the role of government, as sometimes it appears he would be happiest without any at all.

No, I'm not an anarchist. Or even an anarcho-capitalist. We need government to defend and punish those who would use force or fraud against others (unless it's in defense, of course). It's where government itself initiates force that I take great exception.

[shanek]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Look again at Starshark's first post in this thread. Now, tell me he didn't call Shane a right-winger.

No, he said he thought I would be considered a right-winger because of my stance on one issue (the right to bear arms), and expressed confusion as to why some have called me a leftist. It's a fair question, and an understandable confusion from someone who, like most Americans, has been taught the left-right political model and nothing else. He wasn't name-calling; he was trying to understand.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by shanek


No, he said he thought I would be considered a right-winger because of my stance on one issue (the right to bear arms), and expressed confusion as to why some have called me a leftist. It's a fair question, and an understandable confusion from someone who, like most Americans, has been taught the left-right political model and nothing else. He wasn't name-calling; he was trying to understand.

Nice hair splitting, Shane. I ask you to look at it again, and look at my response. Now, tell me I didn't get his point. Obviously, I did, or I wouldn't have bothered to explain the distinction between Libertarians and those on the left and those on the right.

I didn't state that he engaged in name calling in an insulting sense, as you imply. I said he called you a "ring-winger," which is a reasonable inference from, or perhaps restatement of, this remark of his, "I thought Shane K would be considered 'right-wing.'" He then continued, explaining his confusion because others had referred to you as leftist. My explanation of libertarianism was a relevant, reasonable response.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by shanek


Even if that were true, what would be wrong with that?



Where did I imply that there is anything wrong with it? Aren't you being a little bit defensive?

AS

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

For convenience, we label specific positions on specific subjects as "left" or "right", and many people tend to hols predominantly "left" or predominantly "right" views on specific issues; but I don't think anyone but JK seriously believes that you can classify people as easily as you can classify specific positions.

Not on this board, maybe, but it sure seems Shawn Hannity - and, well, his entire ilk, and...well, almost everyone on FOX News, and...come to think of it, just about everyone on TV, and... - has yet to come to any such conclusion. He always refers to people as "right" and "left", never issues.

So here I think you over-state the nuance of many people's views.

[shanek]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Now, tell me I didn't get his point. Obviously, I did, or I wouldn't have bothered to explain the distinction between Libertarians and those on the left and those on the right.

I saw that; and you were, of course, correct.

I didn't state that he engaged in name calling in an insulting sense, as you imply.

That's certainly the impression I got from the sentence, "Now, tell me he didn't call Shane a right-winger."

Since he was basing this off of a single issue, I think it would be more accurate to say he assumed I was a right-winger.

[shanek]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Where did I imply that there is anything wrong with it? Aren't you being a little bit defensive?

No, it's just a way of saying, "So what?"

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it's just a way of saying, "So what?"

Fair enough.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by shanek


That's certainly the impression I got from the sentence, "Now, tell me he didn't call Shane a right-winger."

Since he was basing this off of a single issue, I think it would be more accurate to say he assumed I was a right-winger.

OK. I think perhaps I'm splitting hairs now. I just took issue with your characterization of "name calling." It is derogatory in its connotation.

I found Ian's original attempt at a distinction to be splitting hairs, and I was trying to correct him and note that considering you (not your views--he said "Shane K") to be "right-wing" is no different from calling you a "right-winger." If there is indeed a distinction, it is lost on me. Sorry to make such a big deal of it.

AS

[Victor Danilchenko]

Plutarck

So here I think you over-state the nuance of many people's views.I think you are right in general, but I also think that you are wrong WRT this board; and it was the population of thiose board that Startshark was speaking about, and that I referred to.

I mean, dude, this is a political discussion board on a skeptic forum. It's pretty much a given that most people here realize that you can't classify people as easily as you can classify views.

I personally haven't seen much of such silly pigeonholing of people around these parts, and i don't know where Starshark spied it.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Plutarck

I think you are right in general, but I also think that you are wrong WRT this board; and it was the population of thiose board that Startshark was speaking about, and that I referred to.

I mean, dude, this is a political discussion board on a skeptic forum. It's pretty much a given that most people here realize that you can't classify people as easily as you can classify views.

I personally haven't seen much of such silly pigeonholing of people around these parts, and i don't know where Starshark spied it.

Uh, if I were wrong WRT this board then you would be also, because I agree with you on that point. :confused:

Err, clarifying things -

Plutarck's position:

1) World in general: Uses "right" and "left" to classify people, not issues, in generally purely black and white ways.

2) This board in general: Uses "right" and "left" to classify people more in-passing than seriously and directly, and tends to a more nuanced view of the terms mostly as they relate to specific issues.


So I think we're in agreement, but we're just not aware of it ;)

[corplinx]

Is an open-minded person truly left or right?

[Lucid One]

Originally posted by corplinx
Is an open-minded person truly left or right?

I'm sure your question is rhetorical, but I'll go ahead and comment in any case. People who are open-minded truly can't be classified on the left/right spectrum; however, they can have an obvious propensity toward one school of thought or another.

The connotation for open-mindedness has become a person's degree of greater social acceptance when it should literally mean that a person is willing to delve in to any school of thought. When it comes to contemplation of any issue, the left and right are equally and ignorantly set in their ways.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm in the middle. I hate everyone.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
This whole thread is stupid. Nobody really believes that the political spectrum is polarized, with each individual falling into one camp or the other -- Starshark implies that this bizarre delusion is commonly held on this forum, but such is simply not true AFAICT.

For convenience, we label specific positions on specific subjects as "left" or "right", and many people tend to hols predominantly "left" or predominantly "right" views on specific issues; but I don't think anyone but JK seriously believes that you can classify people as easily as you can classify specific positions.

Maybe it's not as predominant as I made out, but I noticed it. There was someone who referred to himself as left-wing in my "is the us miliary incompetant" thread. Sundog, that was it. And, as you've notice, JK has the habit of referring to himself as right-wing, although I imagine the right-wingers would want as much to do with him as the US Returned Services League would (whatever the US version of the Returned Services League is).

There are others who label as well, but I can't be bothered looking them up right now. I'll just have to ask you to prove a negative and say, "prove it if you don't believe me!" :)

[Starshark]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Nice hair splitting, Shane. I ask you to look at it again, and look at my response. Now, tell me I didn't get his point. Obviously, I did, or I wouldn't have bothered to explain the distinction between Libertarians and those on the left and those on the right.

I didn't state that he engaged in name calling in an insulting sense, as you imply. I said he called you a "ring-winger," which is a reasonable inference from, or perhaps restatement of, this remark of his, "I thought Shane K would be considered 'right-wing.'" He then continued, explaining his confusion because others had referred to you as leftist. My explanation of libertarianism was a relevant, reasonable response.

AS

Oops! You made the No 1 Bulletin-Board Boo-Boo!

Never defend someone unless you're sure they want to be defended!

Read my post again. Maybe I could have been a lot clearer and said something like, "If you were of a patricular disposition and had a habit of categorising political beliefs into 'left' and 'right' pigeonholes, one may be forgiven for thinking that Shane K is right-leaning when he speaks of the right to bear arms..."

Maybe you've got time to type like that, but I don't. Why not assume people mean well unless they're JK?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Starshark


Oops! You made the No 1 Bulletin-Board Boo-Boo!

Never defend someone unless you're sure they want to be defended!

Read my post again. Maybe I could have been a lot clearer and said something like, "If you were of a patricular disposition and had a habit of categorising political beliefs into 'left' and 'right' pigeonholes, one may be forgiven for thinking that Shane K is right-leaning when he speaks of the right to bear arms..."

Maybe you've got time to type like that, but I don't. Why not assume people mean well unless they're JK?

I don't get how you or Shane thought I was defending him. I was merely trying to explain to you that Shane is neither right nor left in the sense you meant.

I didn't assume you meant it in a derogatory fashion.

AS

[shanek]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I don't get how you or Shane thought I was defending him. I was merely trying to explain to you that Shane is neither right nor left in the sense you meant.

But didn't his initial post make it clear that he understood that? Hence his criticism of the left vs. right model.