Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:07 pm

Fundamentally, the tenets of Christianity are liberal. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked - the idea that society should take care of its less fortunate is wheelhouse stuff for liberals.


Actually, using the word "liberal" here is a misnomer - while it may be accurate yo the US usage, its actually a socialist or socialdemocratic tenet. Liberalism (everywhere but the US it seems) is about freedom versus control (Liberalism is opposed to authoritarianism) where socialism is opposed to the individual selfsustainability (economically) or lack thereof - actually the far left of the economic gradation would be ur-communism or utopian socialism, with modern socialism somewhere closer to the center (but still further than close) - like a third of the way from the left towards the center. Then you have almost limitless distinctions in between each extreme.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:24 pm

Nooska wrote:
Fundamentally, the tenets of Christianity are liberal. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked - the idea that society should take care of its less fortunate is wheelhouse stuff for liberals.


Actually, using the word "liberal" here is a misnomer - while it may be accurate yo the US usage, its actually a socialist or socialdemocratic tenet. Liberalism (everywhere but the US it seems) is about freedom versus control (Liberalism is opposed to authoritarianism) where socialism is opposed to the individual selfsustainability (economically) or lack thereof - actually the far left of the economic gradation would be ur-communism or utopian socialism, with modern socialism somewhere closer to the center (but still further than close) - like a third of the way from the left towards the center. Then you have almost limitless distinctions in between each extreme.

Yeah it's a dual purpose term here. When people use it in reference to say the liberalizing of the middle east, they'll usually mention that they aren't talking about "US liberals", but the concept of freedoms. When people choose to describe themselves with a term, they tend to use glowing words like liberal or progressive. The label may stick, but it doesn't mean it's entirely accurate.

To avoid confusion some will use the term western in place of liberal when talking about freedoms.

Koatanga's use of it there is reasonable in the US vernacular.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9640
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:03 pm

"Freedoms" are often in the eye of the beholder, anyway. Some people think freedom means being able to walk from one place to another without being restrained. To some it is the freedom not to worry about terrorism, so they exchange a bit of walking-around freedom for some peace-of-mind freedom.

Some thing freedom means being able to say whatever they want. Others think freedom means not having to listen to what they don't want to hear.

For some, freedom is doing what you want when you want and living for the moment. For others, freedom means being financially secure for the future.
Koatanga, Capnhammer, Shapely, Sultry, Boondoggle, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:21 pm

I have to disagree that "freedom" in a political sense can be made subjective, especially in the context of liberty and liberalism (in the non-US context). Liberalism is the belief that is opposed to authoritarianism, where there (at the extreme end) is actual anarchic beliefs - disguising authoritarian measures as freedom or liberal measures is an oft-used ploy throughout history, especially in regards to safety. These days the watchword of the ploy is terrorism, previously its been foreign threats (cold war had the opposite side), and further back there has been (mostly false) religious differences where the belief was that the other side wanted to make you do things their way (and further back it was actually so).

Backing any restrictions from teh state moves you from the liberal end towards the authoritarian end, as well as backing any freedom from the state moves you from the authoritan towards the liberal end of the scale.

Specific example, the patrio act was a very very authirtarian measure - it enjoys (enjoyeD) the backing of people that thought of it as necessary, and that doesn't mean they were wrong, on unpatriotic (as some people would make it out), it just means that their idea of government was more authoritarian than those that opposed it.

Likewise the scale is not about specific issues - the pro-life movement are authoritarian in their belief that the government should enact laws that limit the choice of women (more than it is today). That doesnt mean that they support all authoritarian measures, or even that they are in agreement with others that end up teh same place. the scales are merely a picture of how liberal/authoritarian you are, not what your specific stances or issues are.
The same goes for the left/right (or ur-communism/individualism*) scale.

* I'm really lacking a good word, the political compass uses "libertarianism for the right, but uses the word "libertarian" for the liberal end of the liberal/authoritarian scale - I think individualism covers it fairly (if you (collective you) object, I'll happily listen to other suggestions for my future usage).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:35 pm

You'll never have a completely lawless society, so extreme "liberalism" or "individualism" or whatever you want to call it simply doesn't exist.

There are conflicting freedoms that are not reconcilable. One person's freedom to practice his religion, if it involves human sacrifice, would be irreconcilable with the sacrificial person's freedom to live.

So you have to come up with a moral/legal/ethical restraint that takes away the freedom of one or the other.

No State exists without laws. It can't because Law #1 is the existence of the state. Law #2 is that the State is empowered to enforce and protect Law #1. So you automatically have those two laws, then you add on additional ones - many of which we all agree upon, like not killing people so you can use their entrails to pick the Super Bowl winner.

So if you accept that there can be no State without laws, then the difference becomes how the laws are applied. Does the man have a right to sacrifice a person as part of his religious freedom, or does the other man have a right to life? Which freedom gets upheld then forms the ideology of the government.

So freedoms are relative. If the will of the people is that sacrifices make better crops and allow the population to grow, then the freedom to sacrifice is upheld over the freedom to live. If the will of the people is that life is sacred and the religion is poppycock, then the freedom to live is upheld over the freedom to practice religion.

I don't think you can talk about liberalism/individualism from an anarchic standpoint at all, because in order to have an -ism you have to have a society and you cannot have a society without some rules.

So then it becomes a trade-off of freedoms, and we get back to the idea that freedoms are relative to the desires of the people who want to be free.
Koatanga, Capnhammer, Shapely, Sultry, Boondoggle, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:43 pm

Nooska wrote:Likewise the scale is not about specific issues - the pro-life movement are authoritarian in their belief that the government should enact laws that limit the choice of women (more than it is today). That doesnt mean that they support all authoritarian measures, or even that they are in agreement with others that end up teh same place. the scales are merely a picture of how liberal/authoritarian you are, not what your specific stances or issues are.
The same goes for the left/right (or ur-communism/individualism*) scale.

That's a troublesome example. First, the intent of pro-life isn't to limit women's choice, it's to protect the baby. That's why it's pro-life and not anti-choice. The sticky part is, that mechanically it's no different at all between a lot of pro-choice folks. Most pro-choicers, and we saw plenty of examples of this in this thread on the topic, also want to (in your words) "limit the mother's choice" at a certain gestational period of the pregnancy, usually viability. They try to rationalize the difference that at the point of viability the baby is a person with rights, but viability is a medical term, not at all related to the concept of sentience. Pro-lifers feel the same way, the more ardent among them deem it a baby with rights at conception. There may not be a clear answer as to when sentience occurs, but it is highly probable that both sides are wrong.

Beyond that though, I do agree with your post. Liberalism in the political freedom sense is not generally viewed as a subjective thing but it's really focused on basic political freedoms at a high level. There's a ton of nuance with that range.

Individualism is probably fair enough for the Libertarian party. It might not be perfect, but I think it gets the point across.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9640
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:35 pm

Time for White America to boycott the NFL.
The league is anti-white, proves it more and more with every passing year.
Let the homosexuals and the filthy degenerate communists and welfare cases buy tickets to these thug fests.
I will never spend another dime on the NFL again.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/29 ... ge=267#267

Checking the Freepers is funny as hell...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10823
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:44 pm

Step one to the boycott, pull the plug???
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9640
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:48 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Step one to the boycott, pull the plug???


I guess =P
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10823
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:20 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Nooska wrote:Likewise the scale is not about specific issues - the pro-life movement are authoritarian in their belief that the government should enact laws that limit the choice of women (more than it is today). That doesnt mean that they support all authoritarian measures, or even that they are in agreement with others that end up teh same place. the scales are merely a picture of how liberal/authoritarian you are, not what your specific stances or issues are.
The same goes for the left/right (or ur-communism/individualism*) scale.

That's a troublesome example. First, the intent of pro-life isn't to limit women's choice, it's to protect the baby. That's why it's pro-life and not anti-choice. The sticky part is, that mechanically it's no different at all between a lot of pro-choice folks. Most pro-choicers, and we saw plenty of examples of this in this thread on the topic, also want to (in your words) "limit the mother's choice" at a certain gestational period of the pregnancy, usually viability. They try to rationalize the difference that at the point of viability the baby is a person with rights, but viability is a medical term, not at all related to the concept of sentience. Pro-lifers feel the same way, the more ardent among them deem it a baby with rights at conception. There may not be a clear answer as to when sentience occurs, but it is highly probable that both sides are wrong.

Beyond that though, I do agree with your post. Liberalism in the political freedom sense is not generally viewed as a subjective thing but it's really focused on basic political freedoms at a high level. There's a ton of nuance with that range.

Individualism is probably fair enough for the Libertarian party. It might not be perfect, but I think it gets the point across.


I apologize if that is the way it came off. My intention wasn't to talk to the intentions of pro-lifers, but the method which by definition limits the "freedom of choice" is authoritarian rather than liberalistic - it doesn't swing to one end of the spectrum by itself, it was just he easiest example I could come up with, and not intended to open the debate again.
And yes, the pro-choice crowd are also authoritarian on the issue, just slightly less so in this regard as they stille want the state to limit the "freedom of choice", just slightly less.

(Heck I'm pro-choice, but also thing that abortion is "too easy" an option and way overused, and think it would be better if more people were personally responsible, so abortions would de facto be limited to rape cases that result in pregnancy, or to situations where birth control failed and a child would not be of benefit to anyone including itself)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:11 am

Fridmarr wrote:The other group, in which I and the aforementioned Libertarians fall, are those that refer to themselves as fiscal conservatives or limited government conservatives. It's not nearly as small a group as I think many people here believe.

Ross Perot managed to get almost 20% of the popular vote, almost entirely from this group where they were willing to break from the republican party and vote for someone that was certain to lose, and at the same time ensure a democrat won the white house. It's hard to say how many were not willing to "waste" their vote in such a way. They followed that up with a historic 1994 trouncing of the democrats, giving republicans control of the house for the first time in 40 years.


I think you are giving too much credit to there being a conservative "silent majority". Court decisions regarding the Voting Rights Act resulted in a vastly increased (doubled from 27-56) number of majority ethnic-minority congressional districts for the 1994 election. Effectively, this created a systemic pro-republican gerrymander, and was the main reason for the wave election of 1994.

It is, combined with the most recent gerrymander with the 2010 redistricting, the reason why the democrats are unlikely to regain the House in 2014, despite having state-wide and national majorities of supporters.

Democrat voters are simply not very strategically distibuted. They tend to be concentrated into cities in a few districts that are EXTREMELY blue.

Fridmarr wrote:More recently you had the tea party, which made a splash and undid not just the super majority in both houses but the outright majority in one. Unfortunately, the tea party fairly quickly turned socially conservative in a massive way, and is all but dead now.


I have similar feelings about Occupy Wall Street. Alas, lost opportunities.

Fridmarr wrote:Consider this, the percentage of people who claim to be conservative are almost twice that of those that consider themselves to be liberal. It's more than 10% (relative not actual) bigger than those that consider themselves moderate, yet a democrat won the last two presidential elections pretty handily. Further, that while Obama was winning his first election and ushering in an almost unheard of super majority in both houses, the number of people calling themselves conservative, was rising significantly. As the number of conservatives has been rising, the number of republicans has been dropping. Democrats are winning because many conservatives don't vote for republicans, the republican party is shrinking because many conservatives don't even call themselves republicans, because the republican party has been dominated by (especially of late since fiscal conservatives are bailing) those social conservatives.


I'd argue that could be just an artifact in the data due to psychology. Regardless of someone's actual relative viewpoints, most people tend to think of themselves as either conservative or moderate, in the sense of being "reasonable" and "open-minded".
In this sense, a person in New Jersey may like unions, be pro-choice, in favor of the auto bailout, want military spending reduced by social spending increased, like Obamacare, and habitually vote for Democrats, but still call themselves a "conservative" when asked on a survey to describe themselves.

After all, they tell themselves, they are a good Catholic and not like those godless communists in New York or those lazy hippies in California! I work for a living! I am open-minded! I don't like crazy changes for no good reason! I can totally see myself voting for a Republican one day, I just haven't seen one I like yet.


Fridmarr wrote:
Brekkie wrote:Fridmarr has a different definition of "Conservative" than every single other Conservative I have ever met.
If I'm being honest, your summaries of "conservative" positions throughout this thread have frankly, astonished me. If I didn't otherwise respect you, I'd think you were just trolling. They are literally worse than I would expect to read from the "Think Progress Playbook for Conservatives are Idiots herp durp"

Although my personal experience couldn't be more different than yours (and I don't think any of the other conservatives that have posted in this thread fall under your definition either), there's really not much I can say about the folks you've met. I'm glad that you find me different than the other conservatives you've met because they sound like real assholes.


Here's an example of the kind of self-described "conservatives" I know. This appeared on my news feed today.

American Sniper and Seal team 3 member Chris Kyle, the deadliest sniper in U.S. History was shot and killed at a gun range in Texas. This wasn't a freak act of insanity or something the media may try to spin it up to, all these shootings are coincidentally happening when Nobama is trying to pass his ban or firearms. Think about it people, when the order is passed to kill Americans from the President who would they NOT want out there with a rifle? Maybe the deadliest sniper in history. This was an organized shooting, I don't care what anyone says, Obama had a bill passed where he could instate Marshall Law and kill American citizens if need be. People like Chris Kyle are labeled Terrorists by the Obama administration now days, this country is going to hell in a hand basket, and its sad that I have to sit here and watch it happen. God Bless men like Chris Kyle, and my prayers are with his family and friends. Semper Fi


I know hundreds of people who think like that, and only you who think like you. Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe there's a huge culture war. Maybe we as a society have simply forgotten how to be rational. I don't know.

There's a study you like to quote (I actually just bought the book of the scientist who conducted it) which showed that self-described Conservatives were able to very accurately predict the way self-described Liberals would answer questions, but Liberals sucked at doing the reverse. I guess that I, myself, have been quite a good example of this failure in this very thread.

The implication of that which I've seen you make before is that Progressives don't understand Conservatives.
Perhaps.

Maybe, rather, it's simply the fact that there is a shocking lack of thoughtful, rational Conservatives able to popularly articulate that ideology.
And if that is true, what does that say about that ideology?
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:26 am

Fridmarr wrote:For the record, you labeled anarchists as left. I didn't, but I think classically they do go there. I think maybe that our disconnect is that I do not consider Conservative and The Right as synonyms. For instance, you responded to my point about nazism not being conservative by hilighting some nazi principles that are on the right. Which is true, but that doesn't mean they are conservative, and in fact you specifically said that they were not conservative, which is very confusing. It was like you were arguing with me while trying to prove my point at the same time.


It was just your use of "polar opposite" that confused me. If we use the political compass thingy, the polar opposite of nazism/fascism is indeed anarchism, not conservatism. If we use Torquemadas funky Cultural/Economic Community/Individual scoring it's less certain, as current US conservatives end up all over the right side of the spectrum.

Anyway, the rambling point is that the difference between nazism and current US conservatism isn't that they disagree on everything (which is what I expect when I hear "polar opposite"), but rather that their main focus is on different parts on the spectrum - full economic freedom for conservatives, full authoriarianism for nazis.

The fun part is that so many very different people self-identify as Conservative. A US conservative would be a liberal in Europe, while a conservative is something else again.

I think they can still both deserve to be called conservative, because they both defend the traditions of their region - the constitution in the US and old privilege in Europe.
Paxen
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Dantriges » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:49 pm

Brekkie wrote:Here's an example of the kind of self-described "conservatives" I know. This appeared on my news feed today.

American Sniper and Seal team 3 member Chris Kyle, the deadliest sniper in U.S. History was shot and killed at a gun range in Texas. This wasn't a freak act of insanity or something the media may try to spin it up to, all these shootings are coincidentally happening when Nobama is trying to pass his ban or firearms. Think about it people, when the order is passed to kill Americans from the President who would they NOT want out there with a rifle? Maybe the deadliest sniper in history. This was an organized shooting, I don't care what anyone says, Obama had a bill passed where he could instate Marshall Law and kill American citizens if need be. People like Chris Kyle are labeled Terrorists by the Obama administration now days, this country is going to hell in a hand basket, and its sad that I have to sit here and watch it happen. God Bless men like Chris Kyle, and my prayers are with his family and friends. Semper Fi


I know hundreds of people who think like that, and only you who think like you. Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe there's a huge culture war. Maybe we as a society have simply forgotten how to be rational. I don't know.


So that guy thinks that:
Obama will or already issued orders to kill americans?
That the admin thought that "Oh yeah when we ban firearms, Chris Kyls will say bye to wife and kids and kill us all."
That they actually killed him as some kind of preemptive strike.
And the writer seems to think that Chris Kyle would actually do that to "save the people from the oppressive government."

Oh and he got his facts wrong. Deadliest sniper in US history doesn´t include deadliest sniper in history automatically.

He writer probably thinks that all these mass shootings that happened in the recent past were actuallly covert ops done by people who were mindcontrolled via CIA orbital mindcontrol lasers. Better get out the tinfoil hats.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:55 pm

Oh and he got his facts wrong. Deadliest sniper in US history doesn´t include deadliest sniper in history automatically.


Americans are automatically #1 in the world, don'tcha know?

Meanwhile, Simo Hayha's ghost is in a corner, crying.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10823
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:03 pm

He writer probably thinks that all these mass shootings that happened in the recent past were actuallly covert ops done by people who were mindcontrolled via CIA orbital mindcontrol lasers. Better get out the tinfoil hats.


Maybe he's Captain America

Image
Darielle
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest