Is the Left - Right Paradigm Obsolete?

[Quantum Windbag]

That graph is utter bullshit. Even more that two-dimensional charts usually are. Just offhand I'd say fascism, anarchy, theocracy, "modern 'liberalism'" (whatever that means) "classical liberalism" (whatever that means) are all in the wrong place. Some of them don't even fit on the chart at all -- that's the pitfall of a two-dimensional chart.

Neither do those degrees of "force" btw. Force would be, at the very least, at the fringes on both sides. Where left will try to dictate a smaller soda and hire X number of minorites, right will dictate who you can marry and what your worker rights are.

Utter bullshit.

Try more like this:

There are multiple dimensions depending on what angle you're looking for. Here's an angle looking at the nature of the State:

(these being from my link in 73 (q.v.)

And you suggest your 'chart' are other than partisan , crudely attempting to misrepresent your political opponents?

I'm a free market economic conservative. I HATE corporate power. Markets only work if the poser of corporations is constantly monitored and limited. The role of the state is to severely limit corporate power.

And what is this religious angle that so obsesses and confuses you Yanks? I'm a Conservative who believes that the proper place for Churches is in the dustbin (Am. 'trashcan') of history. They should not only be separated from th state but from every field of rational human activity.

This is why you have to read the whole post including links, isn't it? Those two charts are just the beginning of the point where that link starts to break down the fallacious two-dimensional bullshit charts as Eagle posted. It's introductory but offered as a contrast to his simplistic and unworkable chart. Just to show him there's more to it.

It was an introduction to a deeper analysis -- not by any means a whole story. I don't believe such analysis can be watered down to a simple chart, and certainly not a two-dimensional one. That limitation is a fatal flaw.

IMO.

The link would have been far too long to post here. That's why it's a link. Try reading it before commenting.

I really don't have the time to go into everything that is wrong with that idiotic drivel that you think redefines the political spectrum. For one thing, there isn't anything rational in the pretense that corporatism is the political opposite of socialism.

Tell you what though, why don't you lick one partial part of that complete abscence of rational thought that you think is particularly insightful, start a thread defending it, and invite me to show you exactly how stupid it is? Unless, that is, you actually don't believe the crap you post, and have no real intention of defending it.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I find fascinating about this topic, is the human mind's tendency to change views based on the consensus of his political group. I believe this derives from a primal tendency to want to be liked, to be a part of the tribe. When that person expresses a differing opinion he is verbally beaten, if not into submission, at least into quiet reflection. Many times I've seen people change their view merely through pressure. How can you be a democrat and support tax deductions (that hurt the tribe's welfare checks). You republicans just want to throw grandma into the street (hurt the tribes elderly women and children). If you are against gun control, it's because you want to let children get shot (the tribe).

 

[Pogo]

Politics had become an issue by issue battle..where someone may fall into the liberal camp on say education,may take the conservative route on immagration.the 2 party system isnt made for this. So right now you have this "war, persay with in the parties on how to handle this. We see this more on the right ,right now.

So you might say "Politics makes strange bedfellows" to describe this current phenomenon, right? It accurately expresses that Left-Right dichotomy breaks down in certain specific issues, just like you say. Right?
Unfortunately it was coined in the 19th century. So this is hardly new. In fact it is the essence of politics that allegiances shift based on interests.

18th century really-- aristocracy on the right, commoners on the left in the French Parliament. Which is obviously only a starting point.

 

[The Rabbi]

What I find fascinating about this topic, is the human mind's tendency to change views based on the consensus of his political group. I believe this derives from a primal tendency to want to be liked, to be a part of the tribe. When that person expresses a differing opinion he is verbally beaten, if not into submission, at least into quiet reflection. Many times I've seen people change their view merely through pressure. How can you be a democrat and support tax deductions (that hurt the tribe's welfare checks). You republicans just want to throw grandma into the street (hurt the tribes elderly women and children). If you are against gun control, it's because you want to let children get shot (the tribe).

It's well studied as the crowd phenomenon and confirmation bias. People tend to repeat what they hear most often. They also tend to discount evidence that runs counter to their ideas. Everyone does that, it's built in.
But I suspect the leftists are more plugged into the media and so tend to repeat what they hear, which is liberal POV. Then they dismiss counter evidence.

 

[The Rabbi]

Politics had become an issue by issue battle..where someone may fall into the liberal camp on say education,may take the conservative route on immagration.the 2 party system isnt made for this. So right now you have this "war, persay with in the parties on how to handle this. We see this more on the right ,right now.

So you might say "Politics makes strange bedfellows" to describe this current phenomenon, right? It accurately expresses that Left-Right dichotomy breaks down in certain specific issues, just like you say. Right?
Unfortunately it was coined in the 19th century. So this is hardly new. In fact it is the essence of politics that allegiances shift based on interests.

18th century really-- aristocracy on the right, commoners on the left in the French Parliament. Which is obviously only a starting point.

Thank you, Capt. Irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

And you suggest your 'chart' are other than partisan , crudely attempting to misrepresent your political opponents?

I'm a free market economic conservative. I HATE corporate power. Markets only work if the poser of corporations is constantly monitored and limited. The role of the state is to severely limit corporate power.

And what is this religious angle that so obsesses and confuses you Yanks? I'm a Conservative who believes that the proper place for Churches is in the dustbin (Am. 'trashcan') of history. They should not only be separated from th state but from every field of rational human activity.

This is why you have to read the whole post including links, isn't it? Those two charts are just the beginning of the point where that link starts to break down the fallacious two-dimensional bullshit charts as Eagle posted. It's introductory but offered as a contrast to his simplistic and unworkable chart. Just to show him there's more to it.

It was an introduction to a deeper analysis -- not by any means a whole story. I don't believe such analysis can be watered down to a simple chart, and certainly not a two-dimensional one. That limitation is a fatal flaw.

IMO.

The link would have been far too long to post here. That's why it's a link. Try reading it before commenting.

I really don't have the time to go into everything that is wrong with that idiotic drivel that you think redefines the political spectrum. For one thing, there isn't anything rational in the pretense that corporatism is the political opposite of socialism.

Tell you what though, why don't you lick one partial part of that complete abscence of rational thought that you think is particularly insightful, start a thread defending it, and invite me to show you exactly how stupid it is? Unless, that is, you actually don't believe the crap you post, and have no real intention of defending it.

You "don't have the time" to listen to anyone else's points, but you have time to post 47 thousand flames on topic ever created.

SMH... this is exactly why I tagged some more intelligent posters (RKMBrown for one) -- because this topic deserves a bit more synapse than the likes of you.

 

[Pogo]

What I find fascinating about this topic, is the human mind's tendency to change views based on the consensus of his political group. I believe this derives from a primal tendency to want to be liked, to be a part of the tribe. When that person expresses a differing opinion he is verbally beaten, if not into submission, at least into quiet reflection. Many times I've seen people change their view merely through pressure. How can you be a democrat and support tax deductions (that hurt the tribe's welfare checks). You republicans just want to throw grandma into the street (hurt the tribes elderly women and children). If you are against gun control, it's because you want to let children get shot (the tribe).

Yeah, cheerleader mentality. You're getting into the fallacy of labels now, which I suppose is inextricable from this topic.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I find fascinating about this topic, is the human mind's tendency to change views based on the consensus of his political group. I believe this derives from a primal tendency to want to be liked, to be a part of the tribe. When that person expresses a differing opinion he is verbally beaten, if not into submission, at least into quiet reflection. Many times I've seen people change their view merely through pressure. How can you be a democrat and support tax deductions (that hurt the tribe's welfare checks). You republicans just want to throw grandma into the street (hurt the tribes elderly women and children). If you are against gun control, it's because you want to let children get shot (the tribe).

It's well studied as the crowd phenomenon and confirmation bias. People tend to repeat what they hear most often. They also tend to discount evidence that runs counter to their ideas. Everyone does that, it's built in.
But I suspect the leftists are more plugged into the media and so tend to repeat what they hear, which is liberal POV. Then they dismiss counter evidence.

Spoken like a guy with a whole lot of confirmation bias issues

 

[The Rabbi]

What I find fascinating about this topic, is the human mind's tendency to change views based on the consensus of his political group. I believe this derives from a primal tendency to want to be liked, to be a part of the tribe. When that person expresses a differing opinion he is verbally beaten, if not into submission, at least into quiet reflection. Many times I've seen people change their view merely through pressure. How can you be a democrat and support tax deductions (that hurt the tribe's welfare checks). You republicans just want to throw grandma into the street (hurt the tribes elderly women and children). If you are against gun control, it's because you want to let children get shot (the tribe).

It's well studied as the crowd phenomenon and confirmation bias. People tend to repeat what they hear most often. They also tend to discount evidence that runs counter to their ideas. Everyone does that, it's built in.
But I suspect the leftists are more plugged into the media and so tend to repeat what they hear, which is liberal POV. Then they dismiss counter evidence.

Spoken like a guy with a whole lot of confirmation bias issues

Spoken like a guy who missed the point.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I find fascinating about this topic, is the human mind's tendency to change views based on the consensus of his political group. I believe this derives from a primal tendency to want to be liked, to be a part of the tribe. When that person expresses a differing opinion he is verbally beaten, if not into submission, at least into quiet reflection. Many times I've seen people change their view merely through pressure. How can you be a democrat and support tax deductions (that hurt the tribe's welfare checks). You republicans just want to throw grandma into the street (hurt the tribes elderly women and children). If you are against gun control, it's because you want to let children get shot (the tribe).

Yeah, cheerleader mentality. You're getting into the fallacy of labels now, which I suppose is inextricable from this topic.

Bingo. Each and every "issue" has a number of different aspects, the best solutions possibly having elements of free markets and other elements of social confluence, interaction, and control. The benefactor of solutions to issues may be individuals, selective groups, or everyone.

But we don't look for solutions do we? Not really... rather, we look for adjectives to attach to labels to make us feel good. Affordable Health Care Act, how could you be against affordable. But what we really do with these labels is obfuscate and redirect. We redefine terms, we conflate and confuse reality. Why?

Simple, it's a game. A game with winners and losers, and no one likes to loose.

Overall solution? Change how we debate, change how we vote, and change how we think.

lol.. ok yeah that's not gonna happen any time soon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is why you have to read the whole post including links, isn't it? Those two charts are just the beginning of the point where that link starts to break down the fallacious two-dimensional bullshit charts as Eagle posted. It's introductory but offered as a contrast to his simplistic and unworkable chart. Just to show him there's more to it.

It was an introduction to a deeper analysis -- not by any means a whole story. I don't believe such analysis can be watered down to a simple chart, and certainly not a two-dimensional one. That limitation is a fatal flaw.

IMO.

The link would have been far too long to post here. That's why it's a link. Try reading it before commenting.

I really don't have the time to go into everything that is wrong with that idiotic drivel that you think redefines the political spectrum. For one thing, there isn't anything rational in the pretense that corporatism is the political opposite of socialism.

Tell you what though, why don't you lick one partial part of that complete abscence of rational thought that you think is particularly insightful, start a thread defending it, and invite me to show you exactly how stupid it is? Unless, that is, you actually don't believe the crap you post, and have no real intention of defending it.

You "don't have the time" to listen to anyone else's points, but you have time to post 47 thousand flames on topic ever created.

SMH... this is exactly why I tagged some more intelligent posters (RKMBrown for one) -- because this topic deserves a bit more synapse than the likes of you.

That isn't what I said, is it? I challenged yo to pick any particular point the guy made and defend it in a separate thread.

You chose to pretend that I refused to give you a chance to make your point.

Guess which of us actually scored a point here.

 

[Pogo]

What I find fascinating about this topic, is the human mind's tendency to change views based on the consensus of his political group. I believe this derives from a primal tendency to want to be liked, to be a part of the tribe. When that person expresses a differing opinion he is verbally beaten, if not into submission, at least into quiet reflection. Many times I've seen people change their view merely through pressure. How can you be a democrat and support tax deductions (that hurt the tribe's welfare checks). You republicans just want to throw grandma into the street (hurt the tribes elderly women and children). If you are against gun control, it's because you want to let children get shot (the tribe).

Yeah, cheerleader mentality. You're getting into the fallacy of labels now, which I suppose is inextricable from this topic.

Bingo. Each and every "issue" has a number of different aspects, the best solutions possibly having elements of free markets and other elements of social confluence, interaction, and control. The benefactor of solutions to issues may be individual, selective groups, or everyone.

But we don't look for solutions do we? Not really we look for adjectives to attach to labels to make us feel good. Affordable Health Care Act, how could you be against affordable. But what we really do with these labels is obfuscate and redirect. We redefine terms, we conflate and confuse reality. Why?

Simple, it's a game. A game with winners and losers, and no one likes to loose.

Overall solution? Change how we debate, change how we vote, and change how we think.

lol.. ok yeah that's not gonna happen any time soon.

That's all propaganda anyway - when it's politics it's demagoguery, when it's commodities it's advertising. Pro-life? Yeah that's me. Pro-choice? Yeah that's me too. Ad nauseum.

But we digress.

 

[Pogo]

I really don't have the time to go into everything that is wrong with that idiotic drivel that you think redefines the political spectrum. For one thing, there isn't anything rational in the pretense that corporatism is the political opposite of socialism.

Tell you what though, why don't you lick one partial part of that complete abscence of rational thought that you think is particularly insightful, start a thread defending it, and invite me to show you exactly how stupid it is? Unless, that is, you actually don't believe the crap you post, and have no real intention of defending it.

You "don't have the time" to listen to anyone else's points, but you have time to post 47 thousand flames on topic ever created.

SMH... this is exactly why I tagged some more intelligent posters (RKMBrown for one) -- because this topic deserves a bit more synapse than the likes of you.

That isn't what I said, is it? I challenged yo to pick any particular point the guy made and defend it in a separate thread.

You chose to pretend that I refused to give you a chance to make your point.

Guess which of us actually scored a point here.

This isn't a thread for "scoring points". Get OVER yourself already.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's well studied as the crowd phenomenon and confirmation bias. People tend to repeat what they hear most often. They also tend to discount evidence that runs counter to their ideas. Everyone does that, it's built in.
But I suspect the leftists are more plugged into the media and so tend to repeat what they hear, which is liberal POV. Then they dismiss counter evidence.

Spoken like a guy with a whole lot of confirmation bias issues

Spoken like a guy who missed the point.

I see, so the evidence you provided of your own confirmation bias, is justified because of your confirmation bias. Oh, I got your point. You missed, or at least misunderstood my smile.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah, cheerleader mentality. You're getting into the fallacy of labels now, which I suppose is inextricable from this topic.

Bingo. Each and every "issue" has a number of different aspects, the best solutions possibly having elements of free markets and other elements of social confluence, interaction, and control. The benefactor of solutions to issues may be individual, selective groups, or everyone.

But we don't look for solutions do we? Not really we look for adjectives to attach to labels to make us feel good. Affordable Health Care Act, how could you be against affordable. But what we really do with these labels is obfuscate and redirect. We redefine terms, we conflate and confuse reality. Why?

Simple, it's a game. A game with winners and losers, and no one likes to loose.

Overall solution? Change how we debate, change how we vote, and change how we think.

lol.. ok yeah that's not gonna happen any time soon.

That's all propaganda anyway - when it's politics it's demagoguery, when it's commodities it's advertising. Pro-life? Yeah that's me. Pro-choice? Yeah that's me too. Ad nauseum.

But we digress.

On said digression, thanks for the opening. I was thinking one solution to making this whole left right issue is to push truth in advertising laws onto our politicians. Why not make it illegal to declare yourself as a conservative when you are really an authoritarian? IOW we make it illegal to use those words entirely. Instead political party planks, when advertised, would have to use facts and words that accurately describe their plank, under penalty of law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You "don't have the time" to listen to anyone else's points, but you have time to post 47 thousand flames on topic ever created.

SMH... this is exactly why I tagged some more intelligent posters (RKMBrown for one) -- because this topic deserves a bit more synapse than the likes of you.

That isn't what I said, is it? I challenged yo to pick any particular point the guy made and defend it in a separate thread.

You chose to pretend that I refused to give you a chance to make your point.

Guess which of us actually scored a point here.

This isn't a thread for "scoring points". Get OVER yourself already.

Funny that you didn't mind scoring points when you thought you had one, isn't it.

Once again, the chance is for you to actually defend something you posted. Once again, you prefer to run away.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Extremism at both ends of the spectrum is the direct opposite of freedom and democracy.

 

[g5000]

The terms "liberal (Left)" or "conservative (Right)" need to be preceded by an adverb.

For example: socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

There are plenty of issues in which there is a distinct Left and Right position. Abortion: Left is pro-choice, Right is pro-life. Gun control: Left is for it, Right is against it. Big government: Left is for it, Right is against it.

The Left-Right paradigm is alive and well, despite demagogues like Glen Beck trying to muddy the waters.

Beck tries to make the liberal Democrat today the same guy as the conservative Democrat of 50+ years ago. He tries to paint the old Right as Left and pretend there is, and never has been, an extremist Right position. He says with an earnest straight face that Nazis are left wing. It is pretty scary times when some dipshit is trying real hard to say no Rightward position is extreme and people are buying it.

Left and Right are still very clear cut, despite the tards' best efforts to say they are not.

 

[RKMBrown]

Extremism at both ends of the spectrum is the direct opposite of freedom and democracy.

Yeah cause extreme freedom is the opposite of freedom.

 

[RKMBrown]

The terms "liberal (Left)" or "conservative (Right)" need to be preceded by an adverb.

For example: socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

There are plenty of issues in which there is a distinct Left and Right position. Abortion: Left is pro-choice, Right is pro-life. Gun control: Left is for it, Right is against it. Big government: Left is for it, Right is against it.

The Left-Right paradigm is alive and well, despite demagogues like Glen Beck trying to muddy the waters.

Beck tries to make the liberal Democrat today the same guy as the conservative Democrat of 50+ years ago. He tries to paint the old Right as Left and pretend there is, and never has been, an extremist Right position. He says with an earnest straight face that Nazis are left wing. It is pretty scary times when some dipshit is trying real hard to say no Right position is extreme and people are buying it.

Left and Right are still very clear cut, despite the tards' best efforts to say they are not.

Yet each and every one of your statements that are supposedly "clear" cut are not clear cut at all. You have your views on the subjects and you assume your abstract label is well known and irrefutable. No.. your chosen labels are arbitrary at best. But you benefit from the labeling don't you?