6 ms·

> In the sense that the far right is a taint, he was tainted; in the sense that it's an entire set of political beliefs, he didn't fit neatly into that box. >

> In the sense that the far right is a taint, he was tainted; in the sense that it's an entire set of political beliefs, he didn't fit neatly into that box. > He was also openly gay you can be gay and be far-right. those are not somehow mutually exclusive. another example off the top of my head: Milo Yiannopoulos and Dave Rubin are both openly gay and far-right. > This kind of black-and-white thinking no. the issue here is doublespeak and misdefining commonly used words. like on that wikipedia page i linked to his far-right views are laid out in detail, yet it also notes that he asserted that these far-right ideas are not far-right. i mean, unless you're arguing that islamophobia and anti-immigration aren't right-wing?

strken 5y ago
I'm arguing that "right" and "left" are a linear one-dimensional approximation of complex multi-dimensional beliefs. I don't associate the far right with drug legalisation, women's and LGBT rights, the right to die, or direct democracy. Pim Fortuyn supported all of these. He was also rabidly bigoted against Muslims, in a way that intersected with his support for other minority groups. Political positions are complicated and sometimes you need more than two words to describe them.
- __alexs 5y ago
  So if you are far-right, but only to brown people, you aren't far-right? This seems so obviously racist I can't believe you can argue for that position in good faith.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > So if you are far-right, but only to brown people You can't be "far-right" to someone. It isn't a verb. And if someone only takes far right positions on the topic of brown people they aren't far right - they are something complicated that needs more description.
    - beckman466 5y ago
      > You can't be "far-right" to someone. It isn't a verb. i think you're willfully misinterpreting here to try to somehow discredit them or 'get' them, without actually offering any meaningful counterarguments. it's easy to understand what that person means. > if someone only takes far right positions on the topic of brown people they aren't far right - they are something complicated that needs more description. please would you elaborate? i haven't seen that before.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        > please would you elaborate To figure out what political philosophy we'd need to know about their other, non-far-right-wing, views. By definition and context, their other views are either mild right wing, neutral or left wing. We'd need to have specific information to classify them. It is impossible with only one, context specific and relatively common, view. > i think you're willfully misinterpreting here to try... Given I'm literally correct, a safer assumption is that I'm the sort of person who cares about being literally correct? Far-right isn't a verb. And racism against brown people is an extremely common thing across the political spectrum; it isn't enough to characterise someone as far right.
        __alexs 5y ago
        In English literally any word can be a verb my dude.
    - __alexs 5y ago
      It's fundamentally impossible to be both racist and not right wing so I'll just have to assume you're a troll.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > Pim Fortuyn supported all of these. i doesn’t really matter if he supported those things individually. look at Reagan proclaiming he is fighting for everyone (including the black community), yet then behind closed doors he refers to black people as “monkeys” (that famous call with Nixon) [1]. so it doesn’t matter if Pim held those beliefs, it matters what policies the party overall pursues, with whom they ally themselves, and what actions come after their stated political aims/programs. when we take a look at similar political parties that came before it does not look good. my point is: pursuing certain xenophobic ideas and pushing for far-right change nearly always ultimately means you end up forfeiting these ‘smaller’ standpoints when push comes to shove. e.g. from Pim’s wikipedia page (under 'Political career') it is well-described how he had already journeyed from being a marxist to becoming a free-market neo-liberal. if he hadn’t been killed i’m sure he would’ve further completed this arc and becoming a far-right neo-conservative populist politician like the Trumps, Baudets and Wilders of today. > I'm arguing that "right" and "left" are a linear one-dimensional approximation of complex multi-dimensional beliefs. did you mean “aren’t” instead of “are”? i’ll assume so, because it seems to make the most sense to me from your other arguments (if not then i am not following you at all) you are trying to redefine the right to left political spectrum to a ‘both sides’ centrist view. this is a dangerous right-wing strategy that aims to reframe a debate on it's own terms; a deflection and distraction away from important systemic critiques (which ultimately leads to a continuation of a systemically violent status quo). [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-reagans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-rea... (archive version - https://archive.md/OdpeR https://archive.md/OdpeR), direct link to call audio https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/nixon-013-008-630-650/s-8Xc9l https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/nixon-013-008-630-650/...

strken 5y ago

I'm arguing that "right" and "left" are a linear one-dimensional approximation of complex multi-dimensional beliefs. I don't associate the far right with drug legalisation, women's and LGBT rights, the right to die, or direct democracy. Pim Fortuyn supported all of these. He was also rabidly bigoted against Muslims, in a way that intersected with his support for other minority groups. Political positions are complicated and sometimes you need more than two words to describe them.

__alexs 5y ago
So if you are far-right, but only to brown people, you aren't far-right? This seems so obviously racist I can't believe you can argue for that position in good faith.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > So if you are far-right, but only to brown people You can't be "far-right" to someone. It isn't a verb. And if someone only takes far right positions on the topic of brown people they aren't far right - they are something complicated that needs more description.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    > You can't be "far-right" to someone. It isn't a verb. i think you're willfully misinterpreting here to try to somehow discredit them or 'get' them, without actually offering any meaningful counterarguments. it's easy to understand what that person means. > if someone only takes far right positions on the topic of brown people they aren't far right - they are something complicated that needs more description. please would you elaborate? i haven't seen that before.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      > please would you elaborate To figure out what political philosophy we'd need to know about their other, non-far-right-wing, views. By definition and context, their other views are either mild right wing, neutral or left wing. We'd need to have specific information to classify them. It is impossible with only one, context specific and relatively common, view. > i think you're willfully misinterpreting here to try... Given I'm literally correct, a safer assumption is that I'm the sort of person who cares about being literally correct? Far-right isn't a verb. And racism against brown people is an extremely common thing across the political spectrum; it isn't enough to characterise someone as far right.
      - __alexs 5y ago
        In English literally any word can be a verb my dude.
  - __alexs 5y ago
    It's fundamentally impossible to be both racist and not right wing so I'll just have to assume you're a troll.
beckman466 5y ago
> Pim Fortuyn supported all of these. i doesn’t really matter if he supported those things individually. look at Reagan proclaiming he is fighting for everyone (including the black community), yet then behind closed doors he refers to black people as “monkeys” (that famous call with Nixon) [1]. so it doesn’t matter if Pim held those beliefs, it matters what policies the party overall pursues, with whom they ally themselves, and what actions come after their stated political aims/programs. when we take a look at similar political parties that came before it does not look good. my point is: pursuing certain xenophobic ideas and pushing for far-right change nearly always ultimately means you end up forfeiting these ‘smaller’ standpoints when push comes to shove. e.g. from Pim’s wikipedia page (under 'Political career') it is well-described how he had already journeyed from being a marxist to becoming a free-market neo-liberal. if he hadn’t been killed i’m sure he would’ve further completed this arc and becoming a far-right neo-conservative populist politician like the Trumps, Baudets and Wilders of today. > I'm arguing that "right" and "left" are a linear one-dimensional approximation of complex multi-dimensional beliefs. did you mean “aren’t” instead of “are”? i’ll assume so, because it seems to make the most sense to me from your other arguments (if not then i am not following you at all) you are trying to redefine the right to left political spectrum to a ‘both sides’ centrist view. this is a dangerous right-wing strategy that aims to reframe a debate on it's own terms; a deflection and distraction away from important systemic critiques (which ultimately leads to a continuation of a systemically violent status quo). [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-reagans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-rea... (archive version - https://archive.md/OdpeR https://archive.md/OdpeR), direct link to call audio https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/nixon-013-008-630-650/s-8Xc9l https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/nixon-013-008-630-650/...