Which side are you?
Left
37.1%
52
Right
40.7%
57
Don't care.
22.1%
31
140 votes
Salvatia said: right i like how left consider of self progressive when no progress lmao The left progresses into dictatorship, misery and ruin. Lots of progress there. |
 |
| If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain. - Winston Churchill |
 |
| ^ Nice quote! I grew up a liberal largely due to my parents. I remember literal worshipping the likes of FDR in Grade school. Now that I'm in my early twenties and have been on my own since 19 I find myself moving more & more towards the right. |
| Right on economical matters. As for social matters, it depends. Some I lean more towards the left and in other more towards the right. I'd say I'm more of a centrist when it comes to social issues since society is complex. Let's just say I'm on the right when it comes to immigration but more on the left when it comes to abortion and religion. |
 |
| Rarusu, that is true and a nice summary. Right and left are comparative words defined only in relation with another. If I put a dot in a clean piece of paper, I can't expect it to be defined as left nor right, that will make no sense unless I have pencil case on the right or a tv on the left to define the relative location of the dot. But usually, the political spectrum retains its contextual uses even if we're in different countries. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
FGAU1912 said: Mao, Stalin and Hitler were all left-wing, so right-wingers do not have the highest kill count.Litrydow said: The left progresses into dictatorship, misery and ruin. Lots of progress there. more right wing war have caused death in higher number than any left wing war fact |
RyanEnsign said: FGAU1912 said: Mao, Stalin and Hitler were all left-wing, so right-wingers do not have the highest kill count.more right wing war have caused death in higher number than any left wing war fact They were all authoritarian leaders of one variety or another--less focused on left-right philosophy as on authoritarian precepts--but to call Hitler leftist is blatantly incorrect. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YandereTheEmo said: Why would that be? Nominally leaving private property alone but essentially central planning is not enough? Don't want to be rude but are you one of the people I mentioned earlier on this thread?RyanEnsign said: Mao, Stalin and Hitler were all left-wing, so right-wingers do not have the highest kill count. They were all authoritarian leaders of one variety or another--less focused on left-right philosophy as on authoritarian precepts--but to call Hitler leftist is blatantly incorrect. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
NekkoArc said: YandereTheEmo said: Why would that be? Nominally leaving private property alone but essentially central planning is not enough? Don't want to be rude but are you one of the people I mentioned earlier on this thread?They were all authoritarian leaders of one variety or another--less focused on left-right philosophy as on authoritarian precepts--but to call Hitler leftist is blatantly incorrect. Yes, he is. Hitler had NOTHING of right-wing. |
|
NudeBear said: and here i thought it was about right and left handed people. seriously, fuck those righties. Why you hating on those righties lol? |
| My name is Terrence always is Terrence and will always be Terrence Current Accounts: ThePinhead3333, |
NekkoArc said: Why would that be? Nominally leaving private property alone but essentially central planning is not enough? Don't want to be rude but are you one of the people I mentioned earlier on this thread? Far-right philosophy tends to bank on pragmatism, anti-intellectualism, nationalism, militarism, and family principles (to name some of the general precepts). Fascinatingly enough, these very principles were expressly embraced by Hitler's fascist regime, much like that of Mussolini's. I don't think you, nor anyone else, wants to see me write a dissertation proving this point, so I could link you to references, if you'd like? There's a book called "Mussolini's Italy" or something along those lines that delves extensively into such right principles. Other evidence can be demonstrably seen in Hitler's very own propaganda. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
Litrydow said: Nationalism is not a necessary criteria for right wing. Right and left strictly speaking pertains to economic views.NekkoArc said: Why would that be? Nominally leaving private property alone but essentially central planning is not enough? Don't want to be rude but are you one of the people I mentioned earlier on this thread? Yes, he is. Hitler had NOTHING of right-wing. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
NekkoArc said: Nationalism is not a necessary criteria for right wing. Right and left strictly speaking pertains to economic views. Yes, and Feminism is exclusively about equality of the sexes. If we're arguing denotation vs. connotation, Conservatism and rightest philosophy, in the simplest form, is about tradition--any subsections following are imparted by the connotations therewith--i.e. how such philosophy has been interpreted and adapted to apply to the functioning world throughout history. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| No no. Feminism is progressive precisely because it asks for government intervention in the economy to solve the nonexistent inequality between the sexes. Political words have their own contexts in political debates. Just because you know casually what conservatism means, that doesn't translate to the meaning adequate for political discussions. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
NekkoArc said: No no. Feminism is progressive precisely because it asks for government intervention in the economy to solve the nonexistent inequality between the sexes. It was an equivalency. Political words have their own contexts in political debates. Yes, their denotations and connotations. To belie what conservatism and right-wing principles are and reduce them to being solely economic is to ignore even the most classical form of conservative philosophy. Just because you know casually what conservatism means, that doesn't translate to the meaning adequate for political discussions. And pray tell, who is the authority on deciding which principles of conservatism, ranging from the most classical to the most contemporary, are and aren't relevant in a discussion of such philosophy? |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
ThePinhead3333 said: Why you hating on those righties lol? Cause they ruined Link. |
| I guess right. I'm a conservative Independent. But the system is broken and both right and left are slowly caving to the globalist agenda. Sweeping changes are needed before we get assimilated into the world government and disappear as a free nation. |
FGAU1912 said: destroying other countries and their economies, making an enemy out of all of your neighbors and getting all of your supply lines cut off as a result are capitalistic, lol you don't know what you're talking aboutRyanEnsign said: Mao, Stalin and Hitler were all left-wing, so right-wingers do not have the highest kill count. expansion is a capitalist ideal hilter expanded by force f amsmvery much right wing ideals |
| Yandere, the "authority" is the context. You would have to delve into the proper formats to discuss the political spectrum, the regimes that seek to establish a certain political worldview, and the social ramifications of it meaningfully. I don't know where Rarusu is getting his stuff but he is spot on. If you want to get a shallow but a fast grasp of the proper "formats" needed for political discussions I recommend you to take popular political quizes and see how it rates the quiz takers. The new political quizes also have the up-down scale which represents how authoritarian or "liberal" you are but ignore that. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
NekkoArc said: Yandere, the "authority" is the context. You would have to delve into the proper formats to discuss the political spectrum, the regimes that seek to establish a certain political worldview, and the social ramifications of it meaningfully. The problem, however, is that the context or format of a discussion should not supersede the philosophical principles that define such topics. Inanely cherrypicking to represent pieces of the philosophy, both from its letter and from its practical use and interpretation, is to, once again, belie the fact of the matter surrounding such philosophy. In this sense, we have to weigh which principles are being strictly followed comparatively with those being either muted or outright rejected. Thus, it is far more tenable that Hitler followed precepts of conservatism--and once again, if need be I will link you to countless books and dissertations discussing the matter. I don't know where Rarusu is getting his stuff but he is spot on. The minor degradation of truth would lead me to believe he isn't entirely correct. There were policies strictly surrounding notions of tradition and family values being embraced by the collective country man, pushes for anti-intellectualism, industrialism, militarism, and once again nationalism all ingrained within the policies themselves. If we want to look at more equivocal evidence, Religion is and has always been a primary part of the root connotations surrounding conservatism and right-leaning philosophy, as it is highly pertinent to tradition, and once again such principles were embraced and imparted by the NAZI party. The main misconceptions regarding Hitler being a leftist arose primarily because of his party's ostensible purpose--but no logical historian would consider the NAZI party one of socialist principles. If you want to get a shallow but a fast grasp of the proper "formats" needed for political discussions This has dissolved into a non-argument. It's now implicit in what you're writing that there's an inherent presupposition that such political views outstepping your own definitions are not considered suitable for alleged proper political formats, which you are the ostensible wiser on. I recommend you to take popular political quizes and see how it rates the quiz takers. The new political quizes also have the up-down scale which represents how authoritarian or "liberal" you are but ignore that. You mean libertarian. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| Conservative/Liberal whitewashing and conformism is bull shit. But mostly left if I had to choose. |
| i fap with my right hand. |
 |
| i'll go with left because right is too mainstream. |
 |
| My own definitions? The reason why it has dissolved into a non-argument is because you are making it almost meaningless. If we are talking about scientific experiments focusing on empirical data and you insist to talk about the philosophy of science and the validity of the scientific method, then by all means do so. But is that appropriate? No, that is for another discussion. But I don't even think this is the case, it seems more like you don't know what you're talking about. I don't agree with using the word libertarian since it is assumed to be right wing in most contexts of political discourse. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
NekkoArc said: My own definitions? The reason why it has dissolved into a non-argument is because you are making it almost meaningless. Unfortunately, cherrypicking examples to be wholly representative of a more complex political philosophy is, in essence, creating your own definitions, or at least warping definitions to conveniently bolster a position. If we are talking about scientific experiments focusing on empirical data and you insist to talk about the philosophy of science and the validity of the scientific method, then by all means do so. This is a non-equivalency. If anything, discussing the context, usage, practicality, classic definitions, contemporary definitions, and root philosophy of a political ideology is more analogous to looking at facts and empirical data than cherrypicking certain specific pieces of said philosophy to bolster a position. I'm merely stating that discounting the evidentiary root of a philosophy, and its core principles, is to belie said philosophy. But I don't even think this is the case, it seems more like you don't know what you're talking about. You have yet to show me how, in this case, I am inherently wrong in my judgement of such a political philosophy. Instead, you've made vague, equivocal statements and comparisons regarding how what I've said somehow is a disingenuous depiction of conservatism and right-wing ideology. This conversation could move forward if you would simply fulfill the aforementioned burden of imparting your comprehensible knowledge of conservatism upon my meager, ignorant intellectual experience, thus re-educating me. I don't agree with using the word libertarian since it is assumed to be right wing in most contexts of political discourse. So now context and connotations do matter in political discourse? You're contradicting yourself. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YandereTheEmo said: Has anybody ever told you about how amazing your posts are in general? |
 |
Donger_Senpai said: YandereTheEmo said: Has anybody ever told you about how amazing your posts are in general? You're making me blush. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| Okay. In a political discourse(or any discourse for that matter)there are a set of agreed upon rules and formats(such as the meaning of words in a political context, and no this is not "cherrypicking")to facilitate a discourse. Right and left pertains to economic views, there are certain associations that follow like nationalism, religion, what have you but these are not the "defining" characteristics of right and left(which is why your "isms" that are not even strictly associated with right wing are not relevant), just have a look at political science textbooks. I hope this answers the reason behind my dissent towards your Hitler comment. You don't need a tight understanding of political philosophy when you are categorizing a political regime. Just like you don't need to study philosophy of science to understand whether an experiment has gone wrong. Contexts and Connotations do matter but your "context" is just inappropriate. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
Gholy said: YandereTheEmo said: It's true though. You're a good poster. Keep it up.You're making me blush. Wut about me senpai? |
| You also don't have to behave condescendingly. I find your posts well thought out but it seems like this is not a familiar ground to you. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
Gholy said: Syndiciate said: mehWut about me senpai? I'll take it! |
| thread successfully derailed mrw |
|
NekkoArc said: Okay. Let's begin. In a political discourse(or any discourse for that matter)there are a set of agreed upon rules and formats(such as the meaning of words in a political context, and no this is not "cherrypicking")to facilitate a discourse. Avoiding semantics is a precedent in some discourse, correct, but it depends on the interpretation of such words themselves. For instance, in discourse regarding abortion, and legislation surrounding it, semantic arguments regarding what defines being "human" and what defines "murder" often come about. This is not paradoxical or contradictory to what discourse consists of, regardless of context or format--and, in fact, such semantics reach a level of necessity and commonality if problems arise with the use of certain equivocal words. Pray tell what concepts tend to be equivocal? Philosophies and ideologies. However, I tend to agree that it can become tiresome to argue for hours regarding the precepts of a philosophy purely because of a rudimentary disagreement, which is why it's important to understand the roles, context, practicality, history, contemporary usage, and core principles of such a philosophy in a meaningful discourse. This problem constantly arises with topics such as Marxism, where people are inclined to misinterpret the definition of Marxist philosophy purely because of how dense and complex it is in nature. However, by evaluating the context, usage, principles, etc... (I've done this spiel enough) of Marxism, a group can begin to holistically understand, at the least, the basics of such a philosophy, helping progress discourse. Just as leveling Marxism to socialism or anarcho-communism would be disingenuous to the philosophy, more-so how it was used, leveling leftism and rightism purely to economic principles is to disregard what is relevant in discussing them. More on the history and context of such terms later. Right and left pertains to economic views, there are certain associations that follow like nationalism, religion, what have you but these are not the "defining" characteristics of right and left(which is why your "isms" that are not even strictly associated with right wing are not relevant), just have a look at political science textbooks. I hope this answers the reason behind my dissent towards your Hitler comment. Strictly speaking, Conservatism (right philosophy) originated in the aftermath of the French Revolution, but was only actualized in the early-mid 1800s as a political philosophy. We must remember that right-wing conservatism was a reactionary form of philosophy in response to, as implied, leftism and revolutionary fervor. As a reactionary philosophy, different forms originated from it, ranging from moderate to radical based on the extent of beliefs. Capitalist principles were in fact shunned off by the reactionary and radical right in order to preserve tradition, once again reimposing the notion of conservatism surrounding primarily the protection of culture and tradition, and economic principles following such definitions in stead. In fact, only once you reached moderate conservatism did such capitalist and free-market ideologies begin to surface, as the philosophical precepts became more accepting of liberalism and leftism. The mischaracterization of such philosophy as being rooted primarily in economics is in many ways based on how conservatism varied as the philosophy spread between different nations and cultures. However, this is not do disregard what conservatism encompasses at root: tradition. Now, once again, this tradition was heavily endorsed by the pre-existing religious authorities at the time, so in essence religion is also heavily tied to conservatism. In regards to the notion that other "isms" inherently are not encompassed by leftism and conservatism, I'd just have to blatantly deny that, there is no real other option. Capitalism can be no less encompassed by the ideology than militarism under such principles, and thus such claims shut down any comparative thinking behind the origins and principles of such broader philosophies. Much like socialism and communism are in essence encapsulated by Marxism, other "isms" can and have been very well encompassed by the left and right. Contexts and Connotations do matter but your "context" is just inappropriate. I'd like to draw attention to the word "inappropriate." Once again, you are defining the discourse, to which I'd disagree is principle discourse at all, and thus you are at labor to claim what is and isn't appropriate under your own presupposed principles. Discussing philosophy implies you have knowledge of the subject in relative context, usage, and in principle, much like discussing religion implies the same, and yet you expect us to belie all three while still considering such a discussion "typical discourse." This is an intellectual miscarriage I cannot help but disagree with. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| The reason why debate regarding abortion often fall back to semantics and legal philosophy is because there are no adequate definitions that are established. This is not analogous to debates surrounding whether to categorize regime x as right or left. The history and philosophy surround them are convuluted, and often times, misunderstood but when "political" words that are often used in casual discussions enter political discourse and become political "jargons", the meanings they hold become slightly different and obscurity minimized, which you don't seem to be aware of and continuously accuse me of "cherrypicking" when I'm being reasonable, maybe this is so because I'm aware of the proper "formats" of political discourse, because I've been debating politics for a number years. If a conservative government in a welfare state cut social spending, is that a "progressive" regime? After all, they are seeking "change" and moving away from the tradition and the "status quo" which right wing conservatives value, is this not moving on from the "traditional" past? Anyone who is even remotely familiar with politics would know that this equivocation in political discourse is inappropriate. If you really wanted "re-education" from me, you would take my suggestions. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
NekkoArc said: This is not analogous to debates surrounding whether to categorize regime x as right or left. The history and philosophy surround them are convuluted, and often times, misunderstood but when "political" words that are often used in casual discussions enter political discourse and become political "jargons", the meanings they hold become slightly different and obscurity minimized, which you don't seem to be aware of and continuously accuse me of "cherrypicking" when I'm being reasonable, maybe this is so because I'm aware of the proper "formats" of political discourse, because I've been debating politics for a number years. This is a mixture of vaunting and misunderstanding how analogous equivalencies work. Discarding what a political philosophy actually consists of because the typical debates you've been involved in have not challenged such definitions is not what one would consider a "proper" or "adequate" format for discourse. Discourse can have varying levels of tact and depth based on the subject matter and time allotted to such discussions--because of this, certain restrictions can and will be placed on what they have time to burden the rest of the group with discussing. In this sense, it is quite easy to delude oneself into thinking the topics they have sometimes restricted are irrelevant, and thus the definitions being used are sovereign. However, to do so is to discard the actual notions and bases for political stances, platforms, and dare I say political philosophy. Such semantic discussions arrive as quite common ground in discourse regarding most-any philosophy, purely and simply because they are equivocal topics, and thus one interpretation is not sovereign. Furthermore, because of this equivocality, it is much more reasonable, as is usually considered so, to utilize definitions rooted in (omission of the list of contextual keys that I have spewed out before), rather than restrictions on the matter at hand. If a conservative government in a welfare state cut social spending, is that a "progressive" regime? After all, they are seeking "change" and moving away from the tradition and the "status quo" which right wing conservatives value, is this not moving on from the "traditional" past? Yes, in fact, it is attempting to provide a level of traditionalism to an already progressive-regime. Conservatism does have an economic bearing which sub-cedes its position regarding tradition from a philosophical standpoint. Conservatives believe, that much like in the pre-existing monarchies, people have an inherent right to all the material and other worth they have earned, and this kind of material worth had been wrought and desolated in the French Revolution. Welfare, in nature, creates a situation where one's worth and merit in the financial world is being undercut to provide to other individuals who have not excelled to such an extent. This ties into heritage, the notion of royalty and regency, and sovereignty at its core, and seeks to avoid falling ploy to much more-liberal, Socialist regimes. We must also remember that much of the economic philosophy regarding conservatism was reactionary to Marxist principles alongside primary leftism, and thus many of the economic principles are, in essence, pure and simple opposites of such aforementioned constructs. This, in root, has been muddled and deluded over time, but ties back into returning to traditionalism while avoiding the influence of the political and philosophical left. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
jakerabbit25 said: I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT THE SIDES OF OUR BRAINS SHIT |
-YunoGasai said: There's right, and then there's wrong. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| Anyone who takes the left/right dichotomy seriously probably has nothing of worth to say about politics. The problem with this division is that it creates two rival teams. The objective becomes not to solve a problem (what will be best for the economy/what is economical prosperity) but to defeat the opposite team. Then one opinion becomes associated with one side, and so if you agree with it appears you're siding with the enemy. That's why it's so dangerous to associate feminism and gay rights with left or free market with the right. You're not letting people choose these ideas because they agree with them, but you force them on people depending on the team they choose. It's also a simplifcation. I see people who, instead of asking 'what's your opinion about letting eggplants talk?' just ask whether you're leftist or rightist. As if such a label can sum up a person's view of various topics. See also: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| "Proper" or "adequate" depends on the context or format of the discussion. To facilitate debates, there are certain "axioms". After all, in order for a discourse to be possible there should be some sort of a base-agrreement. One would have to only refer to the constitution if he is wondering whether the pursuit of happiness or ownership of property is a constitutional right in the US. I've been stating that in "typical political debates I've been involved" such is also true... Sure, there are varying levels of tact and depth to discussion, if the subject invokes it, which is why I brought up typical political categorizations and political philosophy. Even a person who is completely ignorant of political philosophy who has a grasp of right and left would be able judge a regime, albeit with a shallow understand but likely accurate nonetheless. Have you taken my advice to analyze how political quizzes(good ones)score their participants? I'm afraid not. Even though you will get a brief overview and an understanding of how political spectrum work in categorizing political regimes. Not sure if I want to drag this further if you are so adamantly sure based on whatever reason that I'm "cherrypicking". |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
| TheBrainintheJar, while I agree the political dichotomy promotes "jumping on the bandwagon" and the various ill-uses. It's useful in that it at least roughly sketches the person's political values. And yeah, the whole point is making it simple. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » individualism like in usa or collectivism like in japandeg - 7 hours ago |
18 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
4 seconds ago |
|
Poll: » will there be any zombie outbreak in the near future?FruitPunchBaka - 9 hours ago |
7 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Do you deem gratuitously killing insects immoral?vasipi4946 - 10 hours ago |
14 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » is marriage compulsory?FruitPunchBaka - Today |
17 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» America in 1962rian2 - Yesterday |
5 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
7 minutes ago |