5 ms·

It's not so black and white and it's not circular. You can consider all of the above and the terms can be useful. The least useful is sticking to a hard definit

by verall 4y ago

It's not so black and white and it's not circular. You can consider all of the above and the terms can be useful. The least useful is sticking to a hard definition, deciding noone qualifies, and therefore the term is "meaningless". In other words, it's fine if you consider a definition of leftism that includes anarchists, Marxists, collectivists, social democratists and many others to be incorrect, but large groups of people use the term that way and communicate just fine.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> the least useful is sticking to a hard definition, deciding noone qualifies, and therefore the term is "meaningless". The point of the term is a political identifier. If it doesn't encompass anything you believe in but includes your mortal enemies it's not much good. > large groups of people use the term that way and communicate just fine. No, they don't. I don't know anyone "on the left" who would happily use it knowing the full scope of what others using it identified as - and validly under your definition. Surely they aren't communicating anything meaningful. Worse, it encourages those people to label others using their own lax standards, such that everyone who isn't an anarchist, or a marxist, etc, is the polar opposite - "the right". The left is a grab bag, the right is simply everything else. These terms signify a side a culture war but don't indicate any views or policies which may actually differ between them. They mark "us vs them" without being too specific to swap who is who when needed.
- verall 4y ago
  > If it doesn't encompass anything you believe in but includes your mortal enemies it's not much good. > No, they don't. I don't know anyone "on the left" who would happily use it knowing the full scope of what others using it identified as - and validly under your definition. Surely they aren't communicating anything meaningful. You're entitled to your own opinion dude, but political ideologies will spend all day arguing between submovements what does and doesn't qualify, and yet it's still possible to get an outline and then make predictions and discourse from there. Leftist or Conservative, you can hear arguing between tankies and anarchists, between "fiscal conservatives" and fundamentalists, mostly at the fringes, because the fringes disagree with the most. I think what you're trying to say is that the modern left and right are defined by their opposition to eachother ("culture war") and not their value and policy positions. But they do have opposing value and policy opinions, and it's not very hard to write a list. And then you can give names to these opposing groups of values and policy opinions. And you can talk about them and it's not meaningless because there are obvious real-world associations between the values in each group. "The left of the 1700s French legislature" no longer accurately describes any modern political association so that's probably not a useful lens.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > you can hear arguing between tankies and anarchists Those people are the legitimate users of the term 'Leftist'. As I was saying, very few normal people would be willing to use a term that lumps them with strident communists who yearn for the good days of the USSR. It's one thing that some other members of the tribe are commies, but "The Left" was literally coined and adopted by them. (Well, socialists, but no difference.) The Left fully adopted the post modernist rhetoric of the French philosophers in the 60s and 70s, including actual literal pedophiles trying to remove age of consent laws in order to "queer children before they are stifled by the patriarchy". Again, not something normal people would support if they knew. The only way this functions is by being so tribal that nobody looks at who else is in the group because they're so busy screaming at everyone outside the group. As proof that it's an identity and not a useful descriptor - your leftist status can be stripped from you and you will be identified as "far right" if you disagree with certain tribal truths. "The left" is a label people adopt, "the right" is how they label everyone they disagree with. It's a very religious thing, to view all opposition as part of a united collective that wants to destroy you. > Leftist or Conservative Conservative what though? That's almost as empty as leftist. As in careful planning, or as in pushing your religion? You have to add 'Fiscal' to conservative before it begins to represent an actual viewpoint instead of a tribal marker. > it's not meaningless because there are obvious real-world associations between the values in each group. But vastly less meaning than any actual descriptive. Terms like fiscal conservative, socially liberal, democratic fundamentalist, etc, at least mention the issues a person could believe. You're free to call yourself whatever you will, but it's undeniable that left/right, conservative, progressive, etc, are so broad that they're identities instead of platforms.
    - verall 4y ago
      > You have to add 'Fiscal' to conservative before it begins to represent an actual viewpoint instead of a tribal marker. > You're free to call yourself whatever you will, but it's undeniable that left/right, conservative, progressive, etc, are so broad that they're identities instead of platforms I think we _almost_ agree here, except that they are both identities and platforms. > "The left" is a label people adopt, "the right" is how they label everyone they disagree with. Do you feel this is unique to "The left"? > including actual literal pedophiles trying to remove age of consent laws in order to "queer children before they are stifled by the patriarchy" You've gone off the rails my dude, and I have no reason to believe you are communicating with a modicum of good faith anymore. Keep investigating, just remember, they're watching you, just waiting for you to make a small misstep. They want to take away your freedom. They want to turn your children gay. They track your phone location. Stay vigilant. They are always watching.

by verall 4y ago

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

> the least useful is sticking to a hard definition, deciding noone qualifies, and therefore the term is "meaningless". The point of the term is a political identifier. If it doesn't encompass anything you believe in but includes your mortal enemies it's not much good. > large groups of people use the term that way and communicate just fine. No, they don't. I don't know anyone "on the left" who would happily use it knowing the full scope of what others using it identified as - and validly under your definition. Surely they aren't communicating anything meaningful. Worse, it encourages those people to label others using their own lax standards, such that everyone who isn't an anarchist, or a marxist, etc, is the polar opposite - "the right". The left is a grab bag, the right is simply everything else. These terms signify a side a culture war but don't indicate any views or policies which may actually differ between them. They mark "us vs them" without being too specific to swap who is who when needed.

verall 4y ago
> If it doesn't encompass anything you believe in but includes your mortal enemies it's not much good. > No, they don't. I don't know anyone "on the left" who would happily use it knowing the full scope of what others using it identified as - and validly under your definition. Surely they aren't communicating anything meaningful. You're entitled to your own opinion dude, but political ideologies will spend all day arguing between submovements what does and doesn't qualify, and yet it's still possible to get an outline and then make predictions and discourse from there. Leftist or Conservative, you can hear arguing between tankies and anarchists, between "fiscal conservatives" and fundamentalists, mostly at the fringes, because the fringes disagree with the most. I think what you're trying to say is that the modern left and right are defined by their opposition to eachother ("culture war") and not their value and policy positions. But they do have opposing value and policy opinions, and it's not very hard to write a list. And then you can give names to these opposing groups of values and policy opinions. And you can talk about them and it's not meaningless because there are obvious real-world associations between the values in each group. "The left of the 1700s French legislature" no longer accurately describes any modern political association so that's probably not a useful lens.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > you can hear arguing between tankies and anarchists Those people are the legitimate users of the term 'Leftist'. As I was saying, very few normal people would be willing to use a term that lumps them with strident communists who yearn for the good days of the USSR. It's one thing that some other members of the tribe are commies, but "The Left" was literally coined and adopted by them. (Well, socialists, but no difference.) The Left fully adopted the post modernist rhetoric of the French philosophers in the 60s and 70s, including actual literal pedophiles trying to remove age of consent laws in order to "queer children before they are stifled by the patriarchy". Again, not something normal people would support if they knew. The only way this functions is by being so tribal that nobody looks at who else is in the group because they're so busy screaming at everyone outside the group. As proof that it's an identity and not a useful descriptor - your leftist status can be stripped from you and you will be identified as "far right" if you disagree with certain tribal truths. "The left" is a label people adopt, "the right" is how they label everyone they disagree with. It's a very religious thing, to view all opposition as part of a united collective that wants to destroy you. > Leftist or Conservative Conservative what though? That's almost as empty as leftist. As in careful planning, or as in pushing your religion? You have to add 'Fiscal' to conservative before it begins to represent an actual viewpoint instead of a tribal marker. > it's not meaningless because there are obvious real-world associations between the values in each group. But vastly less meaning than any actual descriptive. Terms like fiscal conservative, socially liberal, democratic fundamentalist, etc, at least mention the issues a person could believe. You're free to call yourself whatever you will, but it's undeniable that left/right, conservative, progressive, etc, are so broad that they're identities instead of platforms.
  - verall 4y ago
    > You have to add 'Fiscal' to conservative before it begins to represent an actual viewpoint instead of a tribal marker. > You're free to call yourself whatever you will, but it's undeniable that left/right, conservative, progressive, etc, are so broad that they're identities instead of platforms I think we _almost_ agree here, except that they are both identities and platforms. > "The left" is a label people adopt, "the right" is how they label everyone they disagree with. Do you feel this is unique to "The left"? > including actual literal pedophiles trying to remove age of consent laws in order to "queer children before they are stifled by the patriarchy" You've gone off the rails my dude, and I have no reason to believe you are communicating with a modicum of good faith anymore. Keep investigating, just remember, they're watching you, just waiting for you to make a small misstep. They want to take away your freedom. They want to turn your children gay. They track your phone location. Stay vigilant. They are always watching.