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.

Monster Rain wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?

Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.

True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.

Well... yeah... But Republicans are generally viewed as being "conservative", N'EST-CE PAS?

They are now, but 150 years ago things were different. The Republican Party was more left wing then the Democrats in those days, in terms of its stance on slavery. Of course the entire social landscape was very different in those days, so modern terms like left and right wing are little use in describing it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think the point of that guy winning a nobel prize in economics... isnt that he's infallible.... but that he probably knows alot more about economics than anyone posting here does. It's a fair point.

I can't stand it when guys who get all their facts from fox news and glenn beck feel like they're entitled to debate economics with a PhD. Its like barging into an MDs office and telling him hes practicing medicine in a bad way, and when he asks you what your own credentials are, all you can say is "uhhh.... I watched this show on the learning channel."
AF

I understand that point of view, but I think you're showing an example of someone without qualifications in the field making a *uninformed* statement. I believe that if someone can back up what they're saying then it is potentially valid regardless of their education. I think the difference is that someone with a postgraduate education has some unique qualifications in a specific area. Certainly, someone without those years of specific education is probably going to be subject to more scrutiny, but there is no reason they can't have a valid opinion.

Another thing I encounter that bothers me is that some people will see a M.D. or a PhD on a book and just assume that it is correct and good advice, and if you point out inconsitencies, well, you just don't have that M.D. Unfortunately, a minority of people with those qualifications will publish their own theories or ideas in the popular sphere even when it is not consistent with what the professional community in that field has concluded. At least in the sciences, the consensus of the published literature trumps an individual PhD any day. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but the onus is on the individual to prove his point when going against the established point of view.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
Fascism doesn't require antisemitism. Islamaphobia, homophobia, any kind of fear of an other is all that is necessary for fascism.

you didnt say fascists. you said nazis.

I said both actually. I said they were a nascent fascist movement, and I made an analogy between the Nazi party of 1932 (before they took control of the government) and the current Tea Party movement.

You sound pretty convinced of the same point. Presumably if the tea partiers are nazis all good americans should oppose them. With force if we have to. Your rhetoric leads directly to violence and that's why I think it's my obligation, as someone who *does* believe in democratic government and the possibility of *reasoned discourse* to oppose it. I dont like Palin or that crowd either, but calling them nazis is wrong both morally and factually.

I have never made any claims that the Tea Party should be opposed by force. You are simply making things up when you claim that my rhetoric leads directly to violence. I do think that Americans should oppose fascism, but I don't think violence is necessary. It seems far more important to me that we simply call a spade a spade.

I can see these people gaining power, forcing through an agenda of massive spending cuts that cripple the government, leading to an explosion in poverty and crime, leading to the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections, and the end of democracy in America. I can see that because many of the "intellectuals" of the libertarian movement have suggested it as the only way of effecting the changes that "must" happen to "fix" the economy, and because there are people in the movement -- like the Dominionists -- who see democracy as evil and ungodly.

If those people start winning elections and writing laws then we'll talk about violently opposing them. You're jumping at shadows on the political fringes. If you believe in democratic government, as you say, then you ought to trust the rationality of the average voter and of the system to prevent those people from getting into power.

I have no interest in violently opposing anyone, that's your deal. I just think it's reasonable to say the modern American conservative movement is fascist.

dogma wrote:Currently I'm working towards my PhD in political science, but I also do a lot of work in philosophy (primarily logic), and neuroscience.

Sort of a weird combination, but I'm investigating the implications of ternary logic and neural workspace theory for social science as a whole, and international relations specifically, so there is at least a bit of an explanation.

sounds pretty interesting....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:
I understand that point of view, but I think you're showing an example of someone without qualifications in the field making a *uninformed* statement. I believe that if someone can back up what they're saying then it is potentially valid regardless of their education. I think the difference is that someone with a postgraduate education has some unique qualifications in a specific area. Certainly, someone without those years of specific education is probably going to be subject to more scrutiny, but there is no reason they can't have a valid opinion.

Sure they can have a valid opinion. But when the chips are down you go with the guy whose devoted his life to studying the subject. He can be wrong. The guy without that training can be right. I'm not saying it's a sure thing. It just makes sense to ask, when someone starts opining on a complex subject like the modern economy "what are your qualifications?" If they havent got any, then why should anyone listen to them and not the guy who has done the years and years of training?

Grignard wrote:
Another thing I encounter that bothers me is that some people will see a M.D. or a PhD on a book and just assume that it is correct and good advice, and if you point out inconsitencies, well, you just don't have that M.D. Unfortunately, a minority of people with those qualifications will publish their own theories or ideas in the popular sphere even when it is not consistent with what the professional community in that field has concluded. At least in the sciences, the consensus of the published literature trumps an individual PhD any day. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but the onus is on the individual to prove his point when going against the established point of view.

Yes its the professional consensus that mattes more than the opinion of any one scholar. I agree.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:
I have never made any claims that the Tea Party should be opposed by force...I don't think violence is necessary.

well I'm relieved to see that even you don't take this nazi idea seriously. Really.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I can see these people gaining power, forcing through an agenda of massive spending cuts that cripple the government, leading to an explosion in poverty and crime, leading to the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections, and the end of democracy in America. I can see that because many of the "intellectuals" of the libertarian movement have suggested it as the only way of effecting the changes that "must" happen to "fix" the economy, and because there are people in the movement -- like the Dominionists -- who see democracy as evil and ungodly.

The libertarians arent trying to end democracy in America. What are you even talking about? Some obscure far right theologian opining that democracy is against the word of God isnt a threat to democracy - its free speech. He can say whatever he wants. He just cant *act* on it.

Gailbraithe wrote:I have no interest in violently opposing anyone, that's your deal. I just think it's reasonable to say the modern American conservative movement is fascist.

Are we talking about conservatives or libertarians? They're not really the same thing. Anyway I read Eco's article and I answered it point by point so if you think it's reasonable to call conservatives fascists then I think its reasonable for you to back that up.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

dogma wrote:Currently I'm working towards my PhD in political science, but I also do a lot of work in philosophy (primarily logic), and neuroscience.

Sort of a weird combination, but I'm investigating the implications of ternary logic and neural workspace theory for social science as a whole, and international relations specifically, so there is at least a bit of an explanation.

sounds pretty interesting....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:
I understand that point of view, but I think you're showing an example of someone without qualifications in the field making a *uninformed* statement. I believe that if someone can back up what they're saying then it is potentially valid regardless of their education. I think the difference is that someone with a postgraduate education has some unique qualifications in a specific area. Certainly, someone without those years of specific education is probably going to be subject to more scrutiny, but there is no reason they can't have a valid opinion.

Well, all I can say about that is in my experience many of these academics can't actually *do* anything at all. When the instruments aren't cooperating and the world isn't perfect, it is the people who actually, you know, *work* in the field that get science done. Thirty more hours and a thesis doesn't necessarily impress me. Not only is the literature more important than some individual's paper, ultimately these theories are meaningless without the empirical data to back it up.

I have always strongly suspected that academia has no small amount of self perpetuating elitism built into it. I think everyone who really thinks about it knows that Glen Beck doesn't know anything about finance, but I don't think someone in a field should be ignored simply because they haven't studied some specific aspect of it obsesively. Dr. Atkins was undoubtedly a good physician, but that doesn't mean his diet has any scientific validity.

I love proving people wrong when they're wrong and they think they're right because of this. I've done it more than once.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I have never made any claims that the Tea Party should be opposed by force. You are simply making things up when you claim that my rhetoric leads directly to violence.

No, that's called making an inference, and given your vehemence it seems like a justified move.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I can see these people gaining power, forcing through an agenda of massive spending cuts that cripple the government, leading to an explosion in poverty and crime, leading to the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections, and the end of democracy in America.

Whoa there slippery slope!

Gailbraithe wrote:
I can see that because many of the "intellectuals" of the libertarian movement have suggested it as the only way of effecting the changes that "must" happen to "fix" the economy, and because there are people in the movement -- like the Dominionists -- who see democracy as evil and ungodly.

Please, name one libertarian intellectual.

Gailbraithe wrote:
...and I made an analogy between the Nazi party of 1932 (before they took control of the government) and the current Tea Party movement.

Gailbraithe wrote:There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932.

That's not an analogy, that's a direct statement of equivalence.

Isn't it amusing that Gailbraithe's description of the Tea Party's motives are the exact same as Glenn Beck's description of the Liberals? Apparently every political party is only 1 or 2 degrees removed from the Nazis.

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't it amusing that Gailbraithe's description of the Tea Party's motives are the exact same as Glenn Beck's description of the Liberals? Apparently every political party is only 1 or 2 degrees removed from the Nazis.

Politics: Never will you find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Yes for the most part they as a whole are certainly shades of the same. They espouse various things to gain the support of us lesser life forms, but ultimately they are all serving their own artificially created reality of self-benefit and privilege.

I think politics gets a bad rap. In my experience its no better or worse than any other part of life. Self-interest has a way of making people behave stupidly from an outer examination.

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't it amusing that Gailbraithe's description of the Tea Party's motives are the exact same as Glenn Beck's description of the Liberals? Apparently every political party is only 1 or 2 degrees removed from the Nazis.

When you are describing extremists, or people you regard as extremists, that seems to be the situation. You aren't describing a specific group of people, you are describing a totem for hate and derision, in order to create a shorthand label to smear people who disagree with you.

Neither the Tea Party nor the Liberals are a political organisation in the sense that the Democrats and Republicans are. I don't think Liberals are even an identifiable movement like Tea Party. They are just a "Reds under the bed" bogeyman got up by extreme right wingers.

Individuals who might self-identify with these movements often have conflicting ideas and aspirations. Many Tea Party supporters favour the idea of a free market, but oppose the movement of manufacturing jobs to China through globalisation, which is clearly a consequence of a free market. At the same time as supporting the idea of small government and personal freedom, they want a lot of government control over private lives in areas such as sex, drugs, and religion.

I don't think the Tea Party takes a stance on anything that isn't economic, but many of its members poll conservative with respect to social values.

Exactly.

Ah, ok, I see what you meant now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't it amusing that Gailbraithe's description of the Tea Party's motives are the exact same as Glenn Beck's description of the Liberals? Apparently every political party is only 1 or 2 degrees removed from the Nazis.

When you are describing extremists, or people you regard as extremists, that seems to be the situation. You aren't describing a specific group of people, you are describing a totem for hate and derision, in order to create a shorthand label to smear people who disagree with you.

Neither the Tea Party nor the Liberals are a political organisation in the sense that the Democrats and Republicans are. I don't think Liberals are even an identifiable movement like Tea Party. They are just a "Reds under the bed" bogeyman got up by extreme right wingers.

Individuals who might self-identify with these movements often have conflicting ideas and aspirations. Many Tea Party supporters favour the idea of a free market, but oppose the movement of manufacturing jobs to China through globalisation, which is clearly a consequence of a free market. At the same time as supporting the idea of small government and personal freedom, they want a lot of government control over private lives in areas such as sex, drugs, and religion.

There are fringe liberal groups that could be compared, at least in an operational sense, to the Tea Party.

My use of the term "Liberals" was just to point out who a right-wing commentator would be railing against.

What are these groups' names?

I'm not denying what you say, I am just seeking info.

We hear a lot about the Tea Party in the UK, but it's hard to find info about "Liberal" groups.

Code Pink is an oft cited example, but it isn't anywhere near as broadly appellate as the Tea Party.

Thanks.

A quick Google makes it appear to be a single issue pressure group.

One wonders how a movement aimed at reducing the government activity of war is regarded as Liberal. It might be considered a right wing idea -- cutting back government spending and interference in the free market. (As I understand it, "Liberal" is US right-wing tag meaning dangerously left-wing.)

The American conservative, and libertarian, movements are characterized not by a desire to reduce government activity, but redirect it. Well, at least the realistic components of said movements are like that, there are certainly individuals that act as though massive spending cuts could occur tomorrow.

That is pretty much what I thought.

As I understand it, "Liberal" is US right-wing tag meaning dangerously left-wing.

Yes, and please don't mock our pain. We have thoroughly screwed up our own political language, and this s really where it starts. "Liberal" basically means "libertarian," but because we're rhetorical giants over here, we decided to make it a slanderous epithet meaning "the exact opposite of a libertarian." It wasn't done out of irony either, they just decided to use the word completely incorrectly.

I just think it's reasonable to say the modern American conservative movement is fascist.

You think it's reasonable to say a lot of things that are unreasonable. You also think it's reasonable to suggest, with no sense of irony, that we should silence Fox news and AM radio pundits as a means of preventing the spread of fascist ideas.

There's a reason that Godwin made a law (or at least the corallaries) that the first person to mention Nazis loses. It's not because Nazis are so very ICKY that mention of them is just not allowed. It's not because mentioning Nazis is so bitingly accurate and fundamentally true, that the speaker is cheating by being so incredibly right, and thus has to lose.

The reason is because mentioning the Nazis is invariably wrong, idiotic and done by a ridiculous ideologue with no idea of what he speaks.

The Tea Party is not the Nazis, it's not analogous to the Nazis, it doesn't even hint at the Nazis. The same is true of the American left, the Democrats, the Republicans, etc.

They're not like the Nazis.

Now, to be fair to my past comments on this issue, I do have to admit that I see a greater degree of authoritarianism in the American left than in the American right. It's a fairly minor distinction, both sides are excessively authoritarian in my mind, but the desire to legislate and expand government is more present on the left than on the right.

So, since authoritarianism is core to Fascism and Naziism, I'd say the American left is "more similar." But not really. They're more similar to Nazis in the same way that between a kangaroo and a koala, the kangaroo is more like a tyrannosaur.

Honestly, Gailbraithe old buddy, do you not understand that the stuff you say is total fringe, ultra-left conspiracy talk? Even if it IS correct, why do you so blithely demand that we all stop being so foolish and listen to you? Is that the sort of credibility you think a community college degree affords?

My view as a Brit.

US Left Wing
Socially liberal.
Economically authoritarian.
Politically liberal except when it suits them.
Right wing compared to mainstream UK parties.

US Right Wing
Socially authoritarian.
Economically liberal.
Politically authoritarian except when it suits them.
Right wing compared to mainstream UK parties.

That sounds about right.

Politically liberal except when it suits them.
Right wing compared to mainstream UK parties.

I'd slightly modify these...

I've said in the past, one reason I lean Republican is that I prefer their lies to the Democrats lies. The Republicans at least know I want to hear that they're not going to be authoritarians, the Democrats generally just assure you it's for your own good.

So, I'd reverse your "except when it suits them" bits.

Also, I think the current crop of Democrats running things are very far left as far as American politics go. Certainly not left for Europe, but they're far enough left that I think there may be a few British parties that are similar or even right of them.

dogma wrote:Name an award (athletic championships, and highest score titles don't count) that isn't like that.

Hence why you don't see me holding up any alternative awards as better

BTW, I award you the Hat Award of Smartness. It's a Sombrero. Enjoy.

LordofHats wrote:
Hence why you don't see me holding up any alternative awards as better

BTW, I award you the Hat Award of Smartness. It's a Sombrero. Enjoy.

Can platypi and sombreros coexist? Sound like a sitcom!

Phryxis wrote:

Politically liberal except when it suits them.
Right wing compared to mainstream UK parties.

Certainly not left for Europe, but they're far enough left that I think there may be a few British parties that are similar or even right of them.

Any examples?

BNP?

Any examples?

Unfortunately I don't know enough about British politics to say anything useful. That's why my language was so feebly uncertain. "I think there may."

There are a couple factors for why I speculate that way...

First, I think the Obama administration is WAY to the left of where they appear to be. They're operating in political reality, and they can't simply do whatever they want to. I think if Obama had his way, we'd recenter around Europe, perhaps even to the left of it. He can't just do that, though, so he gets what he can. This may be irrelevant, a politicians is really more about what he does than what he thinks, but I think it's a real phenomenon, and I think it's worth considering.

Second, during the healthcare debate, I was constantly seeing comparisons to British systems which gave me the impression that the US is more "left" and England is more "right" than most people presume, and fairly "right" as Europe goes. A lot of times I'd see somebody suggest something less "radical" than Obama's suggestions, and then somebody else would say "oh, you mean like England does it now?" If "compromise" positions here are aligned with current policy in England, then we're not that far out of aligned.

Also, there are a lot of places where the US and England are not that far out of sync. In social programs, I think we are, but in terms of financial regulation, I think we're much more similar. But again, no expertise in this, I just find that economic controls are inherantly global and so they tend to be more consistent, whereas social welfare programs are very regional, and thus more available for variations.

You tell me, are the American Democrats to the right of the British Conservative party?

Hard to say - the tories have drifted towards the centre on SOME social issues, so in that respect definitely. They've also embarked upon the largest series of cuts undertaken for quite some time, in a period when Obama is briefing against such action. I'd go with a tentative yes.

The Tea party was the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I hope it disappears.

Sarah Palin Also. Just..Go away sarah.