Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm very left. I think the left is (almost by definition) the politics of progress, and I want human society to progress as much as possible. However, I would also add that I think the journey forward needs to be one of gradual fine tuning, not revolution.

I believe that open markets and trade have been essential to creating the prosperity and trade we take for granted. So I believe very strongly in economic policies that encourage private sector investment and competition. However, new wealth is pointless it all filters to the richest few who are already extremely comfortable. So I believe progressive taxes and transfer payments are an effective means of ensuring growth benefits everyone.

I hold opinions on a hold bunch of other stuff and my opinions there are definitely more aligned with the left than the right, but honestly non-economic issues have probably never determined my vote so I'm not sure how much any of that matters.

So where does all that put me on any right left scale? I don't think the scale really works in that sense. And I don't think it's because I'm a special snowflake, I think most people who lack a clear ideological commitment to one faction or another would have similar problems putting themselves on the scale.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.

This is the problem with crudely lumping so many individual issues in to 'left' or 'right'. Both sides value free speech, but both sides also believe there are certain limits. Many on the right support tighter obscenity restrictions, and also support non-disclosure deals in contracts. The left is more likely to support limits to freedom of speech that protect minority interests. So free speech as a whole isn't a leftwing or a rightwing thing.

 Smacks wrote:
I'm very left. I think the left is (almost by definition) the politics of progress, and I want human society to progress as much as possible. However, I would also add that I think the journey forward needs to be one of gradual fine tuning, not revolution.

The further left you go, the closer to folding back around to the right you seem to get. Truly far left ideologies have some... wonky ideas about progress, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Don't tell that to the Antifa groups, Feminist groups, or many other forms of college protestor/rioter these days.

This is the problem with crudely lumping so many individual issues in to 'left' or 'right'. Both sides value free speech, but both sides also believe there are certain limits. Many on the right support tighter obscenity restrictions, and also support non-disclosure deals in contracts. The left is more likely to support limits to freedom of speech that protect minority interests. So free speech as a whole isn't a leftwing or a rightwing thing.

Maybe we should add a "Free Speech" axis to the Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian axes?

Perhaps:

1 - I hate free speech
2 - I want great restrictions on free speech
3 - I want some restrictions on free speech
4 - I want minor restrictions on free speech
5 - I want no restrictions on free speech

 Selym wrote:
Maybe we should add a "Free Speech" axis to the Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian axes?

That wouldn't really tell us very much, because it's a single narrow issue where most people agree on the general principle and only argue about the details. The whole point of summary things like this is to avoid having an axis for every single issue and generalize into a handful of broad terms. But if you insist, we could have a poll:

* I want moderate restrictions on speech, only excluding harmful acts of speech.
* I want strict censorship of anything I don't approve of.
* I don't understand what "freedom of speech" means.

Most people would pick the first option, a smaller number would be honest enough to admit to favoring the second, and a tiny minority of FREEZE PEACH crusaders would proudly declare the third.

 Selym wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I'm very left. I think the left is (almost by definition) the politics of progress, and I want human society to progress as much as possible. However, I would also add that I think the journey forward needs to be one of gradual fine tuning, not revolution.

The further left you go, the closer to folding back around to the right you seem to get. Truly far left ideologies have some... wonky ideas about progress, imo.

There is certainly some ideological wrap around (for example, with things like state ownership). Perhaps I'm reading into what you said wrongly, but I get I feeling that you're alluding to so called "communist" states, such as the former USSR and NK?

I think they're obviously difficult examples, because you have these states that emerged from civil war very unstable, and then they quickly devolved into police states with genocidal dictators. They used a lot of communist rhetoric to control people, but they ended up being more fascist in terms of the power structure. I don't think that's the result of left wing ideologies, a similar thing happened following the French revolution. I think it has more to do with civil wars and people trying to grab power.

 Smacks wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I'm very left. I think the left is (almost by definition) the politics of progress, and I want human society to progress as much as possible. However, I would also add that I think the journey forward needs to be one of gradual fine tuning, not revolution.

The further left you go, the closer to folding back around to the right you seem to get. Truly far left ideologies have some... wonky ideas about progress, imo.

There is certainly some ideological wrap around (for example, with things like state ownership). Perhaps I'm reading into what you said wrongly, but I get I feeling that you're alluding to so called "communist" states, such as the former USSR and NK?

I think they're obviously difficult examples, because you have these states that emerged from civil war very unstable, and then they quickly devolved into police states with genocidal dictators. They used a lot of communist rhetoric to control people, but they ended up being more fascist in terms of the power structure. I don't think that's the result of left wing ideologies, a similar thing happened following the French revolution. I think it has more to do with civil wars and people trying to grab power.

I actually came to the conclusion after watching a documentary on Amazon Prime, wherein a German journalist managed to get a guarantee of safe passage in Islamic State territory, and set about interviewing IS members. The things they said were almost word-for-word the kind of things some people on the extreme left, (such as die-hard SJW's, those that genuinely supported #KillAllMen, etc), have said on various topics.

 Selym wrote:
those that genuinely supported #KillAllMen

If we're talking about that kind of extremely tiny and irrelevant fringe group then we've long since departed the realm of useful conversation. They have nothing to do with any kind of mainstream political group, and if opponents of the left didn't keep using them as straw men hardly anyone would even be aware that they exist.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Selym wrote:
those that genuinely supported #KillAllMen

If we're talking about that kind of extremely tiny and irrelevant fringe group then we've long since departed the realm of useful conversation. They have nothing to do with any kind of mainstream political group, and if opponents of the left didn't keep using them as straw men hardly anyone would even be aware that they exist.

It is not necessary to identify an influential political party to investigate ideological wraparound. They are humans, probably, after all.

 Selym wrote:
I actually came to the conclusion after watching a documentary on Amazon Prime, wherein a German journalist managed to get a guarantee of safe passage in Islamic State territory, and set about interviewing IS members. The things they said were almost word-for-word the kind of things some people on the extreme left, (such as die-hard SJW's, those that genuinely supported #KillAllMen, etc), have said on various topics.

Although I personally wouldn't call those groups good examples of extreme left, I'm curios what the similarities were.

Hmmm, yeah, I suppose those people are associated with the left, purely because feminism (generally) sits near equality (on the left), but opposition to the death penalty also tends to be on the left. I don't want to get into "no true scotsman" but if someone is an extreme misandrist promoting genocide then I'm not sure that has anything to do with the left-wing.

 Selym wrote:
Maybe we should add a "Free Speech" axis to the Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian axes?

Perhaps:

1 - I hate free speech
2 - I want great restrictions on free speech
3 - I want some restrictions on free speech
4 - I want minor restrictions on free speech
5 - I want no restrictions on free speech

The problem is that similar issues exist for just about every single issue. And there's also a problem with seperating a person's values from their perceptions. For instance, a person who works in porn might oppose any restriction to free speech, but he'd be more acutely aware of conservative efforts to ban or restrict his work, than he'd be aware of left wing groups efforts to ban racial hate.

 Selym wrote:
It is not necessary to identify an influential political party to investigate ideological wraparound. They are humans, probably, after all.

But the point is that you don't have that wraparound. There isn't a continuous scale from the moderate left to the "kill all men" lunatics, there's a continuous scale up to a point well short of that and then a handful of fringe nutcases screaming stupid stuff to an empty room (except when the right gives them an audience to "prove" how bad the left is). There's no equivalent to ISIS where you have a continuous scale from mainstream Muslims to oppressive Islamic theocracies to terrorist groups like ISIS, and the violent extremists are a relevant faction on the international scale.

 cuda1179 wrote:
For me, this just reeks of Harrison Bergeron. (for you that don't know the short story, look it up, good read). Let's says I have my heart set on being a prima ballerina. Let's not let my 6'5", 330 pound ogre of a figure get in the way. I demand some kind of genetic enhancement, or at the very least everyone else be forced to wear lead vests to limit their maximum performance to match mine.

You missed the point of either the cartoon or the Harrison Bergeron story. Vonnegut was playing, very whimsically, on the idea of equality that gave up on building up people to be equal, and instead had resorted to an idea of just dragging gifted people down until everyone was equal.

If the cartoon was to be at all similar to Vonnegut's story, instead of boxes it would show ditches that made sure everyone was equally unable to see the game.

New thread hoo dis?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731186.page

As requested, the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale, for you enthusiasts of thorough identification.

Meh, I'm center right. I believe in maximizing personal liberties as much as possible while providing common sense social safety nets that are designed to get people on their feet, not create a dependency.

With increasing numbers of people being economically replaced with machines, I see no way forwards other than democratic fully automated luxury queer space communism. Private ownership of the means of production was progressive... back when the alternative was serfs and landlords. But our literacy level, and telecommunications infrastructure, and productive forces... they're such that the notion of moving on from capitalism will necessarily replicate the outcome of the Russian Civil War is simply laughable.

If someone's a workaholic genius enterpriser, fine, let them stand for election as administrator and project leader of the publicly owned factory and studio. But making those workplaces into their personal private property, that their children will inherit regardless of merit, and rewarding them with unimaginable riches when they figure out how to make destitute all the employees who created their wealth? You what? The 17th century called, it wants its institutions back.