ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

This is real btw, I checked.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

I dont see whats so complicated about left/right. At the end of the day the right values individuals right so long as you dont hurt anyone. Biggest contention is abortion - they feel unborn child is more valuable than convenience of mother otherwise individual is king with property rights and independent action.


Low taxes (or none)
Freedom of speech and religion
letting a man work without massive EPA/OHSA and other gov bodies interference.
And so on is all right



Left is about control and regulate everything.

From what you are allow to say in polite society (speech) to how you spend you money (taxes) to regulation of whole economy.

Not exactly. The right is about individualism and the left is about society.

Your description of the right is what I call the basic position of right (well, not exactly but close enough to it). Whereas what you describe of the left isn't. Your view of the left is a far left position and as such, it is biased.

The base position of the left is to make sure that everyone's base needs are covered by the ruling party.


By the very definition of it, every laws (man laws, not physic) is a left ideology because it's meant to improve a situation by forbidding detrimental behavior (at least, that's the purpose of the law, it can be twisted).

I think we can agree that restricting some liberties ends up being beneficial for everyone. Example:

- Killing being outlawed
- Thieving being outlawed
- driving while drunk being outlawed
- school being an obligation upon childrens
- driving requiring a license being required
- dumping highly toxic waste into rivers being outlawed

Those are all left position as they restrict freedom for the sake of the many and yet, they are all highly valuable to a society.

"

Xavderion wrote:

This is real btw, I checked.

Spoiler

The left isn't very savvy on economics. Or mebbe for President Trump, it's not amazing. Oh, and, nice Pulitzer, guys! You can borrow the cloth Obama uses to polish his Nobel. =^[.]^=

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

I dont see whats so complicated about left/right. At the end of the day the right values individuals right so long as you dont hurt anyone.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Wrong. Individualism is centrist. The true right is collectivist.

Here's a video from a Canada-to-Japan immigrant and prominent far-right YouTuber arguing that Dr. Jordan Peterson is out-of-touch, individualism is weak and identity politics is necessary: https://youtu.be/lrVyXdwft8E

Not all forms of collectivism are left-wing, because not all forms of collectivism tend towards communist ideology. Some forms of collectivism are radically anti-communist and thus anti-left.

-------------------

Molasses edit: NorK returns remains of ~7000 US soldiers from Korean War https://web.archive.org/web/20180727154803/http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-north-korea-remains-20180727-story.html

Collectivism is a far right ideology, you are correct. individualism is a right ideology because it's on that axis that the most true version of individualism is. This is to say "I can do anything and everything". The more restrictive version (and the one that humans are more inclined to go for) is "I can do anything and everything unless it prevents someone else of doing anything and everything". This is what I consider the base position of the right.

And it's not a bad position at all, you know. It's just that it's very hard to progress as a society if everyone is in their own corner doing their own thing.

The difference between right and left collectivism is that the left collectivism is a ruling class while on the right, it's not. Both sides are vulnerable to the same corrupting influence (discrimination). When this happen, they go to the deep end of the left/right.

"

faerwin wrote:

Both sides are vulnerable to the same corrupting influence (discrimination).

Enforcement of law is literally impossible without discrimination.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where so many people use the word "discrimination" as a buzzword for bigotry that most probably think that's what it means. What discrimination really is is: a process of separating people (or things) into groups based on a particular characteristic or set of characteristics, with the understanding that said groups will not receive equal treatment. For example, when setting up a gifted and talented program in a school district, it is good to discriminate based on intelligence -- the smarter students are assigned to a separate group and given a difcerent curriculum.

Everybody discriminates to some extent, the only question is whether one discriminates for or against traits that are properly relevant to the decision, or if they discriminate based for or against traits that shouldn't matter to the decision. It's not good to avoid discriminating; it is good to discriminate well.

In this proper sense, every law is discriminatory. A law against murderers discriminates against murderers. A law compelling a tax discriminates against those who fail to pay their taxes by a certain deadline. A law providing food stamps to the poor discriminates against people who don't meet the law's standards for poverty. Contrary to popular wisdom, there is no law that treats all people equally.

This means that all laws have a left or a right lean. For instance, imagine if we knew the exact stance of all murderers in terms of supporting or rejecting traditional values and/or the status quo. It's infinitesimally unlikely that we'd have perfectly symmetrical results from such a survey; therefore, some correlation would exits between a particular crime and political affiliation, although said correlation could be very weak.

The more laws one wants to see on the books, the more one wants government to discriminate between people. The least discriminatory governments are those that are the smallest -- which implies objective centrism.

Not that I'm advocating government that doesn't discriminate at all. Fuck murderers. But when it comes to discriminating who should and shouldn't be on the receiving end of government force, the only people are want to see discrimination against are those who either initiated or credibly threatened the use of force themselves. I'd prefer most discrimination be left in the hands of the people.

I suppose I should have specified negative discrimination as the corrupting factor (different people are bad because they have difference).

Some people are bad because they're different. It depends on what the difference is.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Some people are bad because they're different. It depends on what the difference is.

no, being different isn't what makes someone (or something bad). It's the biggest error that humans make when they judge someone that's different.

They see that someone do a bad thing, that person is different, thus being different = bad. It's how every (negative) discrimination happen.

The difference isn't what make someone bad. Doing something bad can be what makes someone different. It's important to differentiate between the two and understand that difference has no influence on whether someone is bad or good


in other words. Being different is the result of being bad (in this example), not the cause.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Some people are bad because they're different. It depends on what the difference is.

no, being different isn't what makes someone (or something bad). It's the biggest error that humans make when they judge someone that's different.

They see that someone do a bad thing, that person is different, thus being different = bad. It's how every (negative) discrimination happen.

The difference isn't what make someone bad. Doing something bad can be what makes someone different. It's important to differentiate between the two and understand that difference has no influence on whether someone is bad or good


in other words. Being different is the result of being bad (in this example), not the cause.

I th9ink YoU ArE being LeaD INto BaD argument, bUt Don'T MinD mE. You should define your meaning of differences. There is harmful or beneficial differences and non harmful inconsequential differences. I wouldn't want to lump them into the same tray.

Studies on twins/siblings/bioparents/etc and IQ seem to indicate that IQ is 35-40% genetic in adults; another 10-15% seems to be environmental and/or a result of differences between IQ tests. (These percentages are approximately double in children.) This means that if you're discriminated against based on your intelligence, it's probably about half your moral responsibility to cultivate your mind, and about half factors beyond your control -- unless you're a child, in which case it seems to be almost entirely beyond your control.

So no, faerwin, I am not saying we should only discriminate based on moral choices a person makes. Sometimes it is correct to discriminate based on characteristics the individual has little or no control over. They weren't being bad, that's just how merit is distributed sometimes. Life isn't always fair.