 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Ted, yes but that's ultra view. Of course we would need certain services, police actually serves the people. I'm not talking about going super wild with NO power nowhere, except criminals. Tell me we need all elements, I mean truly need, in the current structures and I can make up more important offices we need for you to sign up. |
Never said we needed all of them. 
But there are alot of great government services that keep a society healthy. On another note, I'm very opposed to privitizing alot of these services, because the for profit motive is not always the best when it comes to social services.
quote:
But that wasn't essentially my point. My point was, that the spectrum is nothing but a delusion, it doesn't mean anything at all unless you believe in it, making you delusional, and that the current power structure has lost its original idea and are not working for us 100% anymore because we come second to party. |
I agree with you there, I've actually posted on this for years, and have avoided things that fit into a preconcieved, box of ideals as much as I am consiously able to.
I do think Clinton has been the most moderate of our leaders over the past 30 years, and balancing the budget was a great success. That goes against him being a "leftist," so that's an example of where the political spectrum just doesn't work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
Kid, No I'm not right wing. To you I might be right wing, but to myself I'm am not any wing at all. Some opinions I hold are commonly supported by people who associate being in the right wing, and some my opinions are left wingish. It doesn't work that way, where I then would calculate how many of my opinions are supported by which side, and then I'm that side.
If I can demolish the whole spectrum, and come up with another thinking pattern, that is not relating to any facts at all, is it automatically better, same or worse? Is it more or less valid, and should we change to that or not? I don't know is wrong answer.
If you think it out, you should come across to 'OK let's play a little.. ok why not, it's the same'. OK I suggest we shall have NO spectrum at all, and devide people into car owners and people who have no car, and they are now the two sides. Does it make any sense? In political field, absolutely no sense at all. So is it now worse or not? Why can't car owners, I mean they must agree on many things, and the other side must disagree with few things.. what's the difference?
What about we devide folks into who think prosperity is a good thing? Ohh but now we have only one side?! OK, ok, so is there an alternative? No! Because none of them are valid, none of them are real. But somehow we accept this current one. And it's not any better than the who throws jelly the furthest, because they are all invalid, there's no such things as less invalid, if they are all invalid. We should have a VALID one, that, unfortunately does not support the current structure of any western country and I think none of other countries structures either.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
So, many people might think what the hell I'm talking about, what does it mean, it's on such high abstract level that it doesn't have any true applications.
So, if you as much as agree with the major points I made, then you realize, that the 99% of internet debates are all moot, that we are living in a real world but basing our beliefs on others beliefs, which makes us delusional by chance, and because we do that, it hinders us as society, nation, world and people. And also that our democracies are failing us, and that we believe something that is long gone, but it's enough we feel good about it and believe in it anyway? Millions of flies like poo. Are they wrong, or is it a subjective matter, if they like it, well good for them? Maybe, but all I'm saying is, we could be flying over poo too, thinking it's good so it doesn't matter. I would say we would have solved tons of current problems had we just solved the problem of demolishing some current beliefs and structures. So we could be pulling one rope. Science would be more advanced too, and maybe we could all get quality service at the hospital and afford it. It's a possiblity, not necessarily true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
And it's just a tool to help us visualize, think about the situation and people's views better? Wrong.
How about liberals? They are viewed pretty negatively, but what does the definition of a liberal say.. :
" the term liberalism refers to a wide range of political viewpoints which can not easily be categorized as "left" or "right". "
Doesn't sound too bad to me. So how come it's a negative thing to be labeled? Because the perception of liberals is bad. Because there might have been some self proclaimed liberals, saying things and getting owned or what ever.
So, does it have a huge impact on people 'who don't necessarily hold traditional thoughts'? Hells yes! And by definition, the true liberal is not even categorizable. Maybe that should be the definition. Spells independent thinker to me. But by my points, I wouldn't think liberals are a good idea either. Just let's take an issue at a time and figure out what we think about it, and that's it.
Because the side products of these spectrums are so much crap that is unnecessary and MOST OF ALL gets everyone sidetracked while the GOAL, be it agreed commonly or not, is forgotten, or twisted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bill3000
|
 |
of Soloralism
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
I'd like to point out something that the awesomeness of Giant Squid (formerly of Apolyton) said, roughly eight months ago. http://www.livejournal.com/users/squid314/9858.html
quote:
The theory I have recently developed is that politics, as practiced by the average person who is neither a political scientist nor a politician, is less rooted in either a genuine concern about the state of the country or in appraisal of what is going on than in a desire for a good conversation topic and a sort of more intellectually stimulating version of sports.
Yes, a "more intellectually stimulating version of sports." Consider. In sports, the general paradigm is that a person support some team, usually because that team is close to zir house or some reason like that. The team isn't morally superior to any other team, or even necessarily better at its game than another team, but ze will support it loudly until the day ze dies (think Boston Red Sox) because ze has psychologically invested zirself in it. Whether zir team is good or bad, it has become one of those things (look at the Law of Universal Egotism, below) that ze uses to differentiate zirself from other people and define who ze is, and therefore, it is possible for zir to honestly feel completely crushed when it loses an important game. Despite the fact that there's really no objective reason to prefer either team over the other, it can be taken as a personal defeat.
When ze meets with friends, ze passes the time by discussing the team's chances for this year, which teams are good and which are bad, and what strategies the coaches ought to take. Ze impresses people by proving zir knowledge of statistics and obscure rules. It is a harmless means of totally harmless social interaction that manages, in some cases, to become such a big deal that people riot and kill over it.
In my opinion, this satisfies a deep need in the human psyche. People generally like identifying themselves with some cause bigger than themselves and then proving to others how that cause is a superior one. It helps them us out who we are, and makes us feel good about ourselves.
Now, take that general paradigm and add the most volatile parts of the human experience - religious beliefs, morals, class divisions, racial divisions, and self-interest. Add a level of complexity so deep that the average person won't be anywhere near qualified to discuss it intelligently. A recipe for disaster, to be certain.
In politics, we have our two teams - the Republicans and the Democrats. People think a lot of the time, that these two parties represent two fundamentally different worldviews. I beg to differ. Consider some issues such as abortion, gun control, euthanasia, and free health care. As we all know, the Republicans generally oppose all of these whereas Democrats generally support all of these. For each side of these positions, there are many good arguments - but there is not, in my opinion, one single argument or philosophical view that could lead to the stance of either of the two major parties.
The libertarians could argue that the state has no right making decisions for people and therefore we should support one and three and oppose two and four. Fair enough. Strong statists might say that the individual should not be allowed to make a decision until it has been assured that it will benefit society, and therefore oppose one and three and support two and four. Fair enough again. Someone who thought protecting human life was the most important factor might oppose one and three, go either way on two, and support four. But I challenge anyone to come up with a single philosophical position or moral law that proves that you should support all four of these or oppose all four of these. If you can, see whether it correctly predicts the parties' stance on invading Iraq, or on the death penalty. If it does, definitely tell me.
And yet, even though each of these stances is completely separate from the others, anyone who ran a statistical test would find massive correlation between, say, someone thinking abortion was wrong and thinking that we ought to invade Iraq. Scarily enough, people's opinions do not shape the platforms of the parties. Rather, the platforms of the parties shape peoples' opinions. Just as my brother hates a player when he's playing against the Angels, and then loves him when he gets traded to the Angels and helps them win a game, so the stance of many people on an issue depends on what party is supporting it at the moment. Back when Reagan was in power, Republicans were going on and on about how unfair the two term limit for a president was. When Democrats mentioned the same limit in regards to Clinton, the Republicans were horrified that anyone would ever think of getting rid of such a constitutionally important protection. Indeed do many things come to pass.
People support their parties as sports teams - as a group to be cheered on because their performance, in some odd way, reflects your value as a human being. Ninety percent of political discussion is less of a "let's see what's best for America" than an attempt to outwit your opponent in order to boost your party and your ego at his expense. The average protester protests less out of outrage - though he certainly feels it - than for the same reason that my brother used to wear an Angels cap everywhere he went - to show his idenitification with a certain cause, and to help that cause define who he is to himself. What exactly do I mean by this? The Law of Omnipresent Egotism states that everyone wants to feel like they're better than the unwashed masses, in their own little way. Both political groups peddle this product. The Republicans let people feel that they're the last bastion of religion against God-hating secularists, supports of morality in a world full of homosexuals and sex-crazed Hollywood stars, and one of the few Americans brave enough to support sending other people's children to Iraq. The Democrats offer people the knowledge that they're supporting peace when everyone else is a testosterone-crazed hawk and the belief that they're with the intellectuals when so many others are hicks who let their personal prejudices get the better of them. Both groups are happy in their smug superiority and never miss a chance to reinforce their feeling by telling it to members of the other group, generally tuning out the other group's answer.
To test this theory, we need only figure out what it would predict, and see whether those predictions are more correct than those generated by the theory that people actually care about their country. Granted, it will be unscientific and easy to fake because I'm deciding what each theory predicts after knowing what the facts are, but hey, if you want YOUR theories to look good, get your own livejournal.
First, it predicts that the popularity of a political figure will have almost nothing to do with the state of the country, but only with how good of a "cause" he creates. This explains the observations so troubling to me above. Sure, almost every objective indicator of the state of the nation has fallen under Bush. But Bush's job isn't to help the economy, or make our country a healthy place to live, or even to prevent our soldiers from dying needlessly. It's to let Republicans believe that they're part of the Army of God going out and fighting those terrorists despite all the Benedict Arnolds and cowards at home trying to stop them. The more crazy evil terrorists kill our soldiers in Iraq, the easier this view becomes to accept, and the higher Bush's poll numbers go.
Second, it predicts that the most effective and common tactic of political debate will not be mentioning specific facts about the effects, whether real or potential, of a certain policy, or even discussion of any specific policy at all. but rather broad condemnations of the moral character and philosophical basis of the opposing party, even when the party doesn't really have much of a philosophical basis to begin with. And tell me, how many times have you heard that the Democrats are just tax-and-spend bureaucrats serving Big Government, or that the Republicans are just corrupt fat cats in the pocket of Big Business? And how does that compare to whether or not you know whether the economy has expanded more quickly under Democratic or Republican administrations in the past forty years (answer, in case you were wondering: Democratic, by an unbelievably large margin - check out the statistics sometime, and be amazed, but don't expect anyone to care).
Third, it predicts that the political issues which citizens, nonprofit groups, politicians, and the American government will address will NOT be the ones that have easy, clear-cut solutions, but rather the ones in which everyone disagrees, every possible solution is bad, and which will obviously never be solved. My shining example here is Tibet versus Palestine. Both are countries that are under the control of a foreign power, and both want more rights and, hopefully at some point in the future, greater autonomy. The difference is that everyone agrees that Tibet is in the right, they're wonderful peace-and-love monk people, and China's an evil Communist regime that basically kills hundreds of thousands of them and says "So sue us" afterwards, whereas Palestine is a much more complex topic, seeing as Israel has legitimate security concerns about them, as their government is much more corrupt and less democratic than Israel, as there are all sorts of terrorist groups there, and as Israel generally treats them amazingly well considering the circumstances. And yet, when you hear someone speaking out for the rights of oppressed people, do you think you're going to hear something about Tibet, or something about Palestine. When a magazine wants to run a sob piece about families suffering under an occupation, do they interview Tibetans or Palestinians. When the US government decides that they want to make a meaningless token gesture to atone for however many international incidents they've caused this week, do they condemn China, or Israel? I suspect that if asked which occupation has caused more deaths, that of Tibet and that of Palestine, at least 75% of Americans would say Palestine, for sure (those darned Israelis!). In fact, it would be Tibet, with over five hundred times as many people dead. But if you bring up Tibet at a dinner party, people will just say "Yeah, wow, sucks to be them," whereas if you bring up Palestine, you can count on supporters of Israel getting a chance to show off their Jewishness and supporters of Palestine getting a chance to show off how forward-thinking and anti-imperialist they are, and everyone's happy except the Palestinians and Tibetans, neither of whom are getting their problems solved any time soon.
So. This rant went a bit longer than I had hoped, as usual, but I think it's some important stuff. Lest I sound like I'm picking on everyone else here while claiming to be a saint myself, most of this I developed through intense introspection and then generalizing the results to everyone else as far as seemed justified by their behavior.
This is exactly why I don't participate in political debates anymore, except sporadically on sides I don't actually agree with in order to hone my arguing skills. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2005 04:10
|