Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 58 of 58

Thread: Are you a leftist or a rightist?

  1. #41
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,926
    Mentioned
    229 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default boo @ dialectics

    answer: no/yes

    the best of "right" is foundational to the best of "left", both are important and incomplete

    many shitholes in USA/world are pre-"right" and pre-"left"; pre-humanism, pre-ideals

    I go with whatever's necessary atm -- Se-SEE 8/9 + 5/4

  2. #42
    GOLD Member Cuivienen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Sexytime
    TIM
    xIE-3Ni 3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,223
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitta View Post
    What you're saying with right and left leaning libertarian is far different though than the way people like Noam Chomsky use it. They think that you can have a form of socialism that fits under the umbrella of libertarianism and to me that just makes no sense.
    Liberty is concerned with negative rights ("freedom from"). A libertarian society is only possible if we exercise restraint in our personal lives, and this is often overlooked, especially by the so-called "left-libertarians". Therefore some objective morality (from religious and ethnic identity) is necessary, not only as a check on state power, but also to prevent people from becoming too indulgent, dependent and weak.

    People must understand that they have agency. Ultimately, you will determine your own success or failure. Nobody has a right to take things which don't belong to them already (theft) or to perform actions that would injure either an individual (violence, coercion) or the nation they're a member of (treason), either now or in the future. Only then will freedom begin to grow again.
    Last edited by Cuivienen; 12-23-2017 at 11:19 PM.
    Others around you will laugh at you and shame you. They will try to make you doubt yourself as they do. However, know that they only do this because they feel threatened by you. They know that you have a higher purpose, and out of jealousy seek to dissuade you from it. They will say: I am just trying to help you. I worry about you. I want the best for you. Do not listen to them. Trust in yourself; in your ability and in your destiny. It may be that for days, months and years, you feel utterly alone in the world, unloved, despised and powerless to change your situation. But you are not alone. Close your eyes and ears to the malcontents, and you will see the true path that lies ahead of you.



  3. #43
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,205
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    negative rights are indistinguishable from positive rights when you get down to it, a freedom from having your things stolen is a right to personal property, etc

  4. #44
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    15,054
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." ~ William Shakespeare
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    629
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    negative rights are indistinguishable from positive rights when you get down to it, a freedom from having your things stolen is a right to personal property, etc
    interesting claim but it's not entirely true because the rights are propositions for action within an assumed circumstance. For example you already have the right to personal property... and that is part of the assumed conditions, and the proposal is to repossess your farm and redistribute it... the right to property is thought of more like an inalienable right. I think people who came up with these terms would argue there are inalienable rights that are neither positive or negative.
    Last edited by rat200Turbo; 12-26-2017 at 02:21 PM.

  6. #46
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,205
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    if you can come up with an example of a negative right without a corresponding positive right I'd like to hear it

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    629
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If the right to your own labor is inalienable...
    If someone tries to infringe on that inalienable right they are claiming a positive right to your labor.
    If you deny them the right you are claiming the negative right to abstain from providing them.
    The negative right is not to your own labor - that right is inalienable... the negative right is to abstain from providing for them, it is a response to their proposal.
    Now... if they claim a positive right to your labor, you could comply with them and relinquish your inalienable right, and become a slave... you need not claim the negative right and refuse.
    Basically the positive / negative claim to a right is dependent on the inalienable right, not the inverse right.

    As far as a negative right not dependent on a positive right goes...
    Peoples inherent right not to be murdered is inalienable. The inalienable right is derived from our humanity and existence and so on.
    So people have a negative right not to be run over by cars that is derived from the inalienable right.
    So if someone fails to look out for pedestrians and runs over one of them, they are prosecuted, they don't have the right to run over pedestrians and they never did.
    The negative right is not dependent on anything positive because it is based on the inherent right basically.
    Last edited by rat200Turbo; 12-26-2017 at 02:43 PM.

  8. #48
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,205
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    negative right to not be murdered is the right to life

    if I understand your first part you're talking about a right to fair compensation for your work, which is really a right to property in terms of a negative right to not be stolen from

    all rights have to be acknowledged of course to have an effect, my only point was that negative rights do not somehow become more meaningful than positive rights or are somehow "freer" or less restrictive, because they're essentially just the spin you put on what are really all just rights in general and all act as restraint on other people's behavior in some positive sense

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    629
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, the right to not be murdered is not a negative right it is an inalienable right. It is never considered possible that murder is permissible.
    A positive or negative right is applied, and it progresses the law forward.
    You are merely framing the same inalienable right in a way that sounds positive or negative but which amounts to no functional difference.
    Last edited by rat200Turbo; 12-26-2017 at 03:03 PM.

  10. #50
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,205
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I mean there are plenty of societies that do not recognize a right to life and thus murder (intentional unlawful killing) is a crime against property (in societies that recognize property rights but not the right to life, which believe it or not happens)

  11. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    629
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My point is simply there is no applied difference between those two phrasings of that right - right to life vs. right to not be murdered. It's an inalienable right.
    If you were to consider the right to murder others as a real right than you'd be engaging in positive vs. negative rights.
    A positive or negative right does implicate a hypothetical inverse right but its true legitimacy is based on the inalienable rights, I suppose.
    I think you can come up with a hypothetical inverse of any statement, whether it is applicable and a legitimate right is the real question.
    I would simply say those societies do not obey the actual law and they are not even functional societies, they may not even be considered societies.

  12. #52
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,205
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah I agree my point was only ever that negative rights aren't some magically distinct category of rights that are somehow less intrusive into the lives of people. negative/positive qualifiers just add context but function in recognition of the same underlying, what you would call, "inalienable" right. which are really just values officially recognized by society and backed by force of law

  13. #53
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    907
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Usually I'm moderate left. I have a few exceptions, such as abortion, but generally I believe that market relations degrade everything without scaffolds.
    salmon

  14. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    629
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I understand Bertrand, I am just fleshing out my thoughts on the matter of inalienable rights, ... sometimes I have to ramble in order to understand something. carry on

  15. #55
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,026
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I used to vote for the Green Party. And I think that when I voted for Justin Trudeau, I voted for the Liberal Party for the first and last time. I'm not sure how I'd define myself politically. I think politics can be misused by people as a way of showing how morally superior they are and that someone who doesn't believe the same things is a terrible human being and/or has a lower IQ or whatever.

    I ended up becoming a "Donald Trump supporter" in certain respects, although maybe at least part of that was reactionary because I had bad experiences with liberals (especially in real life, in the past) who weren't always that nice and accepting of me, and plus I can be hypersensitive, and I hate myself because I have a Russian name, Eastern European accent, etc. and it's not like liberals can't be mean-spirited, cold, fake, two-faced, disrespectful, opportunistic, manipulative, hypocritical, etc. Yet I probably got what I deserved. I'm not really Russian, my mother was half Romanian from her mother's side (they were born and raised in Romania), and my biological father was also Romanian. Romania is a member of the European Union and NATO, and the Romanian language has more in common with Portuguese than Russian. I flirted with socialism in the past, although I hardly read Marx or anyone like that. Now I think that socialism and Marxism are very empty, sterile, boring and potentially dangerous. I don't believe in using physical violence to solve problems (unless someone is actually trying to use physical or sexual violence against you and/or someone else) [i.e. if it's actually happening in the moment--as opposed to hypothetically in the (distant) future]. I don't agree with Antifa. I think liberals (including women) can be prejudiced, chauvinistic, mean, hypocritical, petty, violent, etc. just like anyone else.

    At the same time I know a lot of people don't like Donald Trump. Yet Azealia Banks voted for Donald Trump. Kanye West said he would've voted for Donald Trump. Billy Corgan also defended and supported Donald Trump. My aunt said, "I am really disgusted by this idiot [Donald Trump]. He is the embodiment of idiocy. He is a cunning monkey that appeals to the public with his entitlement and self-confidence."

    I like Stefan Molyneux, Camille Paglia, etc.:







    Last edited by HERO; 12-31-2017 at 03:27 AM.

  16. #56
    GOLD Member Cuivienen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Sexytime
    TIM
    xIE-3Ni 3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,223
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idontgiveaf View Post
    Wow politics is really a big hit
    Yeah, politics is good for ratings.

    But sex is even better
    Others around you will laugh at you and shame you. They will try to make you doubt yourself as they do. However, know that they only do this because they feel threatened by you. They know that you have a higher purpose, and out of jealousy seek to dissuade you from it. They will say: I am just trying to help you. I worry about you. I want the best for you. Do not listen to them. Trust in yourself; in your ability and in your destiny. It may be that for days, months and years, you feel utterly alone in the world, unloved, despised and powerless to change your situation. But you are not alone. Close your eyes and ears to the malcontents, and you will see the true path that lies ahead of you.



  17. #57
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,026
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    answer: no/yes

    the best of "right" is foundational to the best of "left", both are important and incomplete

    many shitholes in USA/world are pre-"right" and pre-"left"; pre-humanism, pre-ideals

    I go with whatever's necessary atm -- Se-SEE 8/9 + 5/4

    I think there’s a lot of truth to this. It’s probably a more enlightened perspective than my own. I’ve never really thought too much about how I identify politically, except that I’ve never voted on the right (i.e. for a conservative candidate) so far. Would someone who’s voted more for the Liberals, Democrats, Greens, etc. be more of a leftist while someone who’s voted more for the Conservatives and/or Republicans be more of a rightist? And then of course there’s the Libertarian option (especially in USA) [I don’t remember seeing it as an option when I voted in the provincial and federal elections in Canada, although it probably is an option in at least some ridings/districts.] Is it usually the case that people who are perceived as being more anti-war, anti-imperialism and/or anti-American are considered more left-wing (and occasionally ‘extreme left’ or ‘Marxist’/ ‘socialist’)?

    Regarding ‘shitholes’ in the world, I think there’s a lot of truth to that. Most of it has to do with abusive childrearing and childhood traumas. My parents were from Romania (part of Eastern Europe). I knew a guy online whose parents were also from Romania, and I think he voted Republican. I also know Romanians who said they admired dictators like Stalin and Ceausescu. I don’t know anyone in my family who’s like that. Yet I think that childhood physical abuse and neglect can increase the chance that someone would admire tyrants and/or vote for reactionaries. In other words, people who support reactionaries (especially right-wing ones), often had more childhood physical abuse and neglect than a lot of the people who support progressives. Yet even people on the left who may admire dictators (e.g. Stalin) may also have suffered more physical abuse, neglect, etc. in their childhoods than leftists who don’t admire dictators. Of course admiring dictators doesn’t mean that one will engage in (‘politically-motivated’) violence, yet it doesn’t preclude that possibility either. Significant unresolved childhood traumas may increase the chance that one may sooner or later condone, tolerate, or support violence. (And is violence even effective against the potential future threat of fascism?)

    Romania had a pretty bad communist dictatorship, and it was the only European nation that got rid of its communist regime through violence (maybe the violence was necessary in Romania’s case; I’m not sure). I’m sure at least some people would probably still consider Romania a shithole, in part because it’s one of the poorest nations in Europe, and also because it has more child abuse and neglect than many Western nations. I know some Romanians (maybe the minority) may have considered Russia culturally and artistically superior to Romania, yet I’m not convinced that Russia had better childrearing than Romania. I can’t help wondering if my childrearing/psychoclass (Ambivalent? and/or definitely inferior to many North Americans and Westerners) along with my Romanian background precipitated my psychological decline and political tergiversation. Do Romanians suffer more from personality disorders like borderline, etc.? Or is it just a certain level of abusive childrearing that exists in many parts of the world (with Romanian parents being more abusive and neglectful on average than parents in the Western world)? Or perhaps most people will just say that it’s my fault that I took a wrong turn and/or that I have to at least try to have more self-control regardless of what’s happening. I think the guy I dated once may have used the term “shithole” (or something similar) when talking about nations like Romania and Bulgaria (in Eastern Europe). I mentioned that my parents were from Romania.

    I occasionally listen to and read right-wing journalism, articles, shows. (I think I first started doing that around 2016). Here’s an article: https://www.infowars.com/report-trum...ole-countries/

    I don’t think Donald Trump mentioned abusive childrearing. Yet I think the best way to improve one’s nation and society is to improve the childrearing and also provide more and better psychotherapy for those who suffered from childhood traumas that may have adversely affected their health, decision-making, self-esteem, etc.

    Edit: I took these tests a couple of months ago (maybe I should take them again in the future):

    http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/

    Your best fit is...
    Core Conservatives

    http://gotoquiz.com/politics/politic...m-results.html

    You are a centrist moderate social libertarian.
    Right: 0.33, Libertarian: 3.02


    I also got these results with other tests (I might look for the links in the future):

    52% Economic Leftist: "Opposes deprivation and subordination. Supports solidarity and mutual aid."

    66% Social Liberal: "Supports tolerance, exploration, and diversity."

    71% Civil Libertarian: "Supports robust debate, intellectual engagement and free expression."

    65% Antistatist: "Rejects centralized violence and authority as unnecessary and detrimental."

    72% Anti-Militarist: "Opposes the non-defensive use of military force and highly resistant to incurring collateral damage."


    - My match for the Political Spectrum Self-Test is:
    Populist
    “Although it is men who make preparations for war, the confusion in their heads is the end product of childrearing practices and ways of treating children that are attributable to men and women of past generations. The absolute power a mother has over her little child knows no limits, and yet no qualifications are required of her. It is therefore of the utmost urgency to examine more closely the effects of such unchecked power, to recognize parental power for what it is, and, through this awareness, to reduce its danger for the future.”—Alice Miller

  18. #58
    killer wolf lemontrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    emotionz
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,129
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most certainly a leftist, although I find a lot of leftist people too harsh. But I would love universal healthcare, basically free college (at least community college), etc etc and I don't mind paying for it. I think I've read articles about how this sort of stuff actually saves society money as a whole, because when people don't get preventative health or education they end up in more strenuous situations. And I think it's irresponsible to not have a social safety net when the US is extremely economically productive and jobs lost to automation are not coming back. If only a small subset of skills are marketable and those skills generate enormous wealth then the wealth should be shared to some degree.
    There was no place that destruction did not touch...At best it made everything feel flooded, urgent, while pushing towards decay and exposing the imminent failure of managing to maintain a form at all. Inside this was the kernel of wholeness. She could be broken down into a small, granular piece, a bit of debris jostling against other bits of debris, and in that friction there was some sense of having a boundary or a presence, and that thing-ness of the self, reduced to a basic instinctive sensation, was an almost-nothing feeling that, in its small hard knot of a numb halo, made it clear to her that you were here, you were now.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •