I'd argue that it arose from the remnants of the Nazi's socialist roots and is more usually arrived at from the left, but like a number of these, you can argue different ways, in part because a one dimensional abstraction is pretty limiting.
And thank you for a civil discussion on an often heated topic.
Fascism is authoritarian, and both the far right and far left end up as authoritarian, which makes them all share a lot of characteristics. Nazism was fascist, and had some traits that were more closely far right than far left (don't take my word for it, read the wikipedia article and follow the references). To that end, the elements I consider to be typical of the far right in the Nazis are also likely to be elements that are fascist. Elements that are far left are less likely to be classically fascist although they are just as authoritarian. I've tried to distinguish between authoritarian and things that are more definately right/left.
I don't think I've used a nazi=fascist=far-right=nazi loop, but that's the problem with unconscious bias; it's hard to see.
specifically; 4-6 are citizenship and race. The right is usually focused on its own citizens, uses nationalism and in the far right can become xenophobic. I think this is a pretty clear case for being classically 'right' and then exaggerated by the far right.
13-14 I acknowledge as being both far right and far left. It's a failure mode both can reach, although from different paths.
23 and 24 I acknowledge can be argued to be either neither or possibly far right. I think this is a case where traits that are present in the moderate right (citizens first, and the sort of conservatism that values national culture/religion) become exaggerated by the far right but I can see an argument that sees these points as being so far removed from the concerns of the moderate right that they are qualitatively different.... and that's all I identified as 'far right'. One that's an exaggeration the nationalism to the point of xenophobia. One that's as much far right as far left and one that's arguable.
I'm genuinely curious, can you provide an example where you think I've used a circular definition?
---
You list a number of things that the right have endorsed, but you've omitted a number as well. The right is usually nationalistic, the left usually internationalisation. The right is usually (in the modern era) conservative culturally and socially as well as fiscally, the left is usually progressive and/or liberal. Personally, I'd add that the right advocates individual rights and responsibilities, the left focusses on collective rights and responsibilities.
Specifically the nationalism - which when distorted by extremism becomes the racism/xenophobia of the far-right and can give rise to militarism. I don't know. Maybe that's where I'm arguing circularly. The far left can be just as bloodthirsty, but it's usually classist, not racist, so I do think that racism is usually a far-right phenomenon.
No, the people who really hate America are stirring up and attempting to radicalise you, rather than letting you see that you can accomplish more by finding common ground and realising that while you have some differences, talking about them civilly and rationally and working together in areas of agreement is likely to be far more useful than name calling, finger pointing or tribalism. Gun rights and gun restrictions - they support and promote both in ever more extreme fashions.
I'm not American. I really hate party politics, especially when it becomes reflexive, or worse, spills over into social and civil divisivness.
Gun restrictions or not, I'll bet most reasonable people could find a common ground that didn't please everyone, entirely, but at least addressed the concerns of most. If only people, internally and externally, would stop stirring the pot.
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
Except that he avoids traditionally 'right' elements of the Nazis, irgnores that the Nazis claimed to be neither left, nor right but a syncretism of both (and hence have elements that are both traditionally left and traditionally right), listed elements that are authoritarian and by the association with authoritarian-left claims the Nazis were left.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him.
And Hitler both criticised and praised Stalin. Because, you know, Nazis are hard to define on a single axis of left and right.
They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology
Sure, if you ignore what that means, ignore Hitler's criticism of same and the elements of Nazism that are traditionally right.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles
1. is right (nationalism) 2. is neither (world recognition, lifting of sanctions) 3. is neither or right (demand for land) 4-6. is far-right (citizenship tied to race) 7. is left-ish (state provided opportunity for livlihood - note this is a weaker left than traditional communist/socialist left where the state provides the livlihood, not just the opportunity.) 8. right-ish (limitations on immigration. Traditionally right, and linked to the far-right racism, above, but given the period and the context may not have been as right as it now looks. Certainly not traditionally left) 9. neither or weakly left (equality of citizens. Weakly left because of statement about obligations. Better seen as authoritarian IMHO) 10. far-left (citizens must be productive and have an obligation to the state) 11. left (breaking of unearned income and abolition of debt slavery. Again, I'm moderating this from 'far-left' because of the historical situation. Definately not right) 12. unknown/arguable (abolition of war profiteering. Left if you consider any interference in a free market left. Neither if you consider production through war is frequently nationalised even by capitalist/free-market countries, right if you consider the merging of state and corporation esp. in war production) 13-14. far-left and far-right (nationalisation of industry. Corporatism or communism arrive at the merging of state and corporation from different directions but the same outcome) 15. left (age welfare) 16. unique-right-ish (creation of middle class (right), seizing of assets (left) for loan to small business (right-ish)) 17. left-ish (removing land speculation, and allowing for expropriation) 18. extremist (death to certain classes of criminal) 19. neither (rule of law) 20. left-ish (education) 21. left-ish (abolition of child labour, provision of health and sporting facilities) 22. right or neither (national army) 23. neither or far-right (citizenship and the press) 24. neither or far-right (freedom of religion and/or promotion of Christianity) 25. authoritarian (centralised power)
I make about 9-10 right, anything from weakly right through far right. I make about 11 left with similar caveats. Then there's a few that don't fit even within those fairly broad catch-alls. We can argue specifics and there are some I'll accept could go either way, but that's my point.
Nazis borrowed from both left and right, criticised both, were fascist and hence authoritarian. Calling them 'left' is true, but only partly so and is just as true to call them 'right, more true to call them 'far right' and better to add an extra axis and start adding an authoritarian adjective.
Hitler claimed to be neither left, nor right wing and criticised both, while using elements that were, at the time, both left and right.
Yes, Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but that quote has a couple of attestations. If you'd like to argue otherwise, I'd like to see a similar (or better) standard of evidence to support your claim. Your argument and list of traits you consider left is a mix of traints common with some politically left organisations and some authoritarian organisations (some of which are left). It ignores traditionally right elements of the Nazis (like nationalism and anti-liberalism). It's unbalanced and superficial.
The Nazis were fascist. Fascism is authoritarian.
That authoritarian governments arise from politically left parties is obvious (just as it is obvious that they also arise from politically right parties). That authoritarian governments share common traits should be obvious. Identifying authoritarian traits in politically left governments and comparing those to authoritarian traits in the nazis and declaring the nazis politically left is lazy, dishonest or ignorant.
Politically left fascism kind of exists, mostly as a criticism of the extreme left, but it's a new term and not well defined - mostly it seems to be used as an epithet.
Frankly, both ends of the political spectrum tend to look pretty similar when they get extreme enough and it would be charitable to think that this is where most people are getting confused.
TL:DR Nazis are usually considered 'far right'. They claimed to be syncretism of left and right and criticised both while taking elements from both. They were fascist and authoratarian (redundant). Observing that the authoritarian 'far left' and nazis have something in common is obvious. Arguing that this makes nazis left is shallow.
I dare say there are some who consider this position too mild, but I also recognise that I personally hold an opinion that others find extreme and while I'm happy to explain my reasoning certainly wouldn't preach or try to persuade. If people recognise that direct purchase of diamonds supports a cartel and organisation responsible for some pretty ugly behaviour and choose to wear family jewellry instead, I'd consider that a 'win' in terms of raising awareness and eventually seeing the end of de Beers.
They are looking at tarnishing the image of other man made diamonds. While they were arguing that their 'natural' diamonds were better it was an 'us vs them' argument. Supposed scarcity vs perfection. If they manufacture man-made diamonds, but refuse to grade them, drop the price to the point where they become almost disposable fashion items, then they can make other man-made diamonds seem similar. If they can manage to drive several manufacturers out of business by undercutting them then that's a bonus.
But by continuing to 'profit' from the spilled blood there is an argument that you are at least partially culpable.
Similarly, by wearing and showing a diamond ring, you contribute to making them appealing, acceptable, or similar and hence have a second order influence on other people purchasing 'blood diamonds'. If it's OK to wear family jewellery, is it OK to wear 2nd hand jewellry seeing as the blood has already been spilled, and if that's OK, does that mean you're creating a market for others to buy and then sell gems?
I understand that not everyone is going to evaluate the situation the same way, and may find these arguments less compelling than I do, or others. I'm offering them only as an explanation as to why some people may reject even family jewellery.
There's a significant difference between a street performer and a beggar.
One offers something before they ask for payment; the other just asks for payment. Some performers are crap. Some have heart but no talent. Others are superb. You get to judge the product before you pay.
I've stood in a queue while a busker up the street played several classical pieces on the flute. He was amazing and made the wait a pleasant one. I've waited for friends and stood on the street listening to some musicians jam. Not great, but very fun. I've bought CDs from performers I liked, attended markets where the music was provided by various street performers ranging form the competent to the talented.
I'm not sure where you've been, but I _like_ street culture. I like buskers and performers. They add to the fabric of society and asking people to donate some coin in return for what they've already given away is more than fair.
The judge's comments seem deeply out of touch. More interesting was the the graph and some commentary around it further on in the article. Reported knife crime does seem to be making a marked climb from a recent low.
Below the graph, the following information is provided - fatalities per year from stabbing 186, 212, and 215, respectively for 2015, 2016 and 2017. It then mentions that in the first 100 days of 2018, 53 people have been killed, some by knife. Even if we assume all 53 are knife attacks and we assume the rate remains constant, it would imply that 2018 will have a total of ~180, lower even than 2015. Why not say so? Is 'in the capital' the same as 'in London'? I'd assume so, but in that case why not make it explicit. The way the information is presented is inconsistent - I'd prefer to believe that it's just incompetence, but I'm concerned that this is designed to feed an agenda.
I find knife bans odd for the very reason the judge acknowledges - they are ubiquitous. Banning pointed kitchen blades isn't a solution. Re-shaping a blade is trivial; making a blade is trivial - it's one of the first tools mankind made, second, perhaps, only to a hammer.
the murder rate is astronomical and rising rapidly
Looking at the graph for homicide it looks like there's a general downward trend dipping to the lowest point in 2012 and rising a little since. A note is made that the 9 people killed in the London Bridge and Finsey Park attacks are included in the 2017 figures.
In fact, the graphs of all violent crime show the same downward trend across the last couple of decades.
Do you have any source of information that shows differently? The wikipedia article cautions about the difficulty of obtaining information and that the data from the police needs to be treated with caution. It's possible that there's something that's been missed, but all you have at the moment is an assertion and some vague implications about 'Muslim extremists'.
The common thread is that you are somehow fixed in your social class
Not at all. The US has reduced social mobility compared to other first world countries. The US tends to overstate the ability to change class and better onseself. Regardless, it's getting worse.
Here's a quick overview. Please note that social mobility has either remained static or decreased since the 70s. Your ability to better yourself is to be commended. That opportunities that existed in your generation are reduced or absent in this is not contradicted by your experience.
I'm not arguing that bettering yourself doesn't takes work, nor am I asking or expecting anyone to do anything about it. Except, perhaps, for folk like you who have managed it to show a little grace towards those who haven't. Hard work doesn't pay out the same way it used to.
I lived.. I worked...
Please understand, I'm in no way saying you had it easy, or that your hard work wasn't a significant factor in your achievements. It's just that there are people who have worked just as hard for just as long and have less to show for it. And that's a trend.
Point is, altogether too many people think...
Confirmation bias. Anecdote.
Well friend, if you think you can' t do it, you are certainly correct. If you were sold any bill of goods, it wasn't me. Enjoy wallowing in your self pity, It isn't much of a substitute for hard work and financial acumen, but it's an easy and ready excuse.
Like so many 'self-made' people you exaggerate the value of your work and ignore or are blind to the circumstances, situations and plain luck that contributed.
Thank you for your patronising tone, it's certainly been instructive.
The world doesn't, but society owes you an opportunity. That's part of the 'social contract'. And when one party doesn't keep up their end, then the other party would be insane to do anything but turn on, tune in and drop out. Oops. Wrong generation.
The X-generation seemed to pick up on some of that and got called 'slackers'. The Millennials have an even clearer view of just how lopsided the contract has become and are even more disconnected. Social mobility has been crap for generations and it's getting harder to pretend otherwise. Corporations own rights to cultural works and are making a pretty successful attempt at making sure nothing returns to the public if there's a cent to be made from it. Wages are stagnant, the 'gig' economy makes working less secure than ever and the idea that education was the way to better yourself has created a generation burdened by an all new form of debt. Hard work used to have a pretty strong correlation to success, but it's increasingly just the table stakes. After that it's down to luck or forces outside your control as to whether shady financial dealings drops the economy in a hole for long enough to screw any possibility of maintaining long term financial security.
All part of a shrinking middle class. Each generation is taking longer to get to the same place as the one before. So maybe it's them and an entire generation is throwing a tantrum. Some, maybe. But if a generation is being characterised by rejecting the social contract as offered, maybe it's not just bad parenting and unrealistic expectations.
You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states
I see. It's OK when you do it because you're correct in your sweeping generalisations and attribution of characteristics of a group to an individual.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
No such argument was made
You are correct. I was generalising and attempting to be reasonably charitable in my attribution of motivation. You've clarified that for me, thank you.
"Using a word as a pejorative" =/= "the word is a pejorative".
I answered your challenge to me and you're attacking that based on legalism and dictionary definitions while continuing to avoid the substance of my criticism. I've made my point as clearly as I can and don't believe that it's useful to continue.
I could make the same accusation of you and with more evidence in this exchange than you've shown.
If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem?
If you were using it as a pejorative, absolutely. If you were using it as an ad-hominem, the same.
I'm not objecting to your content. To be plain, I think there are people who identify as 'left' who use victimhood as a way of life; who use rhetorical tricks, logical fallacies and populist tactics to stifle debate and silence dissent. I can speculate as to their motives, but it's unnecessary. Their behaviour can be criticised.
But not all people who identify as left do this, and not all who do this are left. By using 'leftist' as you have you're dismissing criticism of your own behaviour in the same manner as people who call 'troll' in the face of something they don't like.
Are you denying that twitter is likely to have a very left leaning employee base...
Irrelevant to the criticism I'm levelling. Whether I agree or not, whether you are correct in your characterisation or not is content. Your 'flamebait' mod is deserved for the manner in which you presented it. You claim it's for the content. I disagree.
I am criticising your manner. For your dismissal of my criticism to be true, you need to demonstrate that I'm uncomfortable with your content. Please proceed. All I've seen so far are assertions and avoidance.
An uncomfortable truth is offensive to some.
Now that is a far more reasonable statement. One that doesn't use pejoratives and can be applied to people from various factions, groups and leanings. That is not what you said in the first place, and _that_ is what I was criticising.
A crack in the bubble.
Fair answer. My last line was sarcastic, and this is a nice foil. Appreciated.
It does, but I'm not sure that it's widespread enough to have anything more than the occasional, minor impact. The effort to stamp it out, completely, is likely to do more to distort discussion than the sockpuppets themselves. I'd go so far as to say that there are posters whose posts make more of a difference than the moderation of even a fairly dedicated sockpuppet.
it doesn't seem like many people metamoderate, and that system is broken and showing me unmoderated posts 3/4 of the time when I go anyway.
There have been times, years ago when there were more posts and metamoderation was new, when I'd be shown posts from weeks back and everything was moderated. That I'm seeing posts only a day old and many unmoderated suggests to me that most moderated posts are being metamoderated. I'm not seeing unmoderated posts being offered for meta moderation as broken, but a sign that the system is very healthy. I've no proof either way, 'though.
To be fair, I've no real evidence to back any of this up. Your observations match mine, but I attribute cause differently.
When an article is fresh there are fewer posts. It takes time for a range of posts to be made that will attract the attention of different mods. Time-zones differ and so there will always be an effect that sees moderation take place over a day or so. As more people moderate, you'll see a regression to the mean lead to a fairly even distribution of moderation. In short, a skewed distribution of moderation is not unusual for a new article and isn't necessarily a sign that there's anything wrong with the system.
The problem is that more people want homogeneous and boring than want lively debate, confronting ideas or uncomfortable news.
Look at how many media organisations have moved away from trying to be impartial reporters and found a niche to pander to with scandal and feel-good.
I agree with everything you've said, I just don't see it changing until people realise that echo chambers are dangerous and comfort is best had in moderation. Until then, we'll see the same cycle again and again. As something grows in popularity it will either choose to pursue an ideal of free speech (less common) or chase continued popularity (more common).
Your use of 'leftist' drew the flamebait flag. It has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with form.
To your content;
Your statement is an example of what you accuse 'leftists' of doing. You claim they call anything 'uncomfortable' trolling. You're dismissing accusations of trolling as being a defensive reaction to being presented with an uncomfortable idea. The example 'leftist' is dismissing an idea because it is uncomfortable. You are dismissing a criticism because you attribute a motivation to the person making the criticism that allows you to dismiss it and then demonstrate that very trait in your reaction to the flamebait tag - you assumed it was a reaction to your 'uncomfortable idea' and not a valid criticism of the way you expressed the idea.
Your idea isn't uncomfortable and characterising criticism of your idea as being because the critic can't handle it is condescending and cheap.
But then, perhaps I'm a 'leftist' and my reaction is just a justification for not being able to deal with your uncomfortable idea.
The ideal of an impartial press that publishes with as even a coverage as they can has proven to be less profitable than the press that panders to the masses desire for scandal and self-reinforcing ideas.
Were someone to strike out and establish a system where anyone could say anything without fear or favour, it would be frequented by a few idealists, some fringe groups that aren't welcome most places and a lot of trolls. Most people have little use for the ideal of free speech if it comes at the cost of having to wade through uncomfortable ideas, let alone the sea of comments that deliberately seek to disturb or garner a reaction.
Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc. are offering a service that people will want to use. To the degree that 'free speech' is desireable, it will be provided, but it will be heavily diluted from the ideal. There will remain some more niche services that pay more than lip service to 'free speech' but they won't be popular.
Popular or principled - I don't see something that's both existing until people change.
Do you realise you are doing pretty much exactly what you are criticising?
"Silicon valley liberals" do this, think that etc. Exactly what you criticised your friends for doing with people in the industrial states.
Can we please, everyone, stop doing this? Stop with the 'they did it first, so it justifies me doing it'? You're right to describe the habits and assumptions of groups of people, it's useful. And you're correct in pointing out that the Democrats lost the last election in part because of failing to recognise the deep disatisfaction of much of the rural and industrial areas of the US. It's when you take those behaviours of the group and assume that all members of that group exhibit those behaviours equally that you run into the very thing you object to.
Not all blue collar people vote the party line. Not all silicon valley liberals think they do. Some do. In both directions.
Please, call out the behaviour, but do so without falling into the same trap, yourself. All that does is create a kind of tribalism that precludes any useful compromise or working together and allows for an 'other' that we can rally against and feel like we belong. It's us and them.
One of the most effective ways to enforce group think is to introduce user moderation, and slashdot was basically the place that invented it. Just sayin.
I disagree.
The way user moderation is implemented at Slashdot seems to allow contrary opinions to exist. Nothing is modded below -1, so dogpiling is mitigated and even -1 comments are sometimes replied to. Nothing is modded over +5, so positive comments all top out to the same amount - there's no fighting for 'most votes'.
You'll still see strongly differing opinions with positive moderation in threads - something that doesn't seem to happen to the same degree on other sites.
I've yet to see evidence of collusion or deliberate suppression of ideas. I've seen mods that looked like '-1 disagree' but more often I see negative moderation for posts that are flamebait, offensive, trollish or offtopic. If you have an unpopular opinion, stating it in a way likely to attract criticism is a great way to play the victim. Rather than taking care to express yourself clearly and risking being unsuccessful in convincing people to change their minds, it's easier to be deliberately confrontational and then claim any negative response is part of 'group think'.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
I'd argue that it arose from the remnants of the Nazi's socialist roots and is more usually arrived at from the left, but like a number of these, you can argue different ways, in part because a one dimensional abstraction is pretty limiting.
And thank you for a civil discussion on an often heated topic.
Fascism is authoritarian, and both the far right and far left end up as authoritarian, which makes them all share a lot of characteristics. Nazism was fascist, and had some traits that were more closely far right than far left (don't take my word for it, read the wikipedia article and follow the references). To that end, the elements I consider to be typical of the far right in the Nazis are also likely to be elements that are fascist. Elements that are far left are less likely to be classically fascist although they are just as authoritarian. I've tried to distinguish between authoritarian and things that are more definately right/left.
I don't think I've used a nazi=fascist=far-right=nazi loop, but that's the problem with unconscious bias; it's hard to see.
specifically;
4-6 are citizenship and race. The right is usually focused on its own citizens, uses nationalism and in the far right can become xenophobic. I think this is a pretty clear case for being classically 'right' and then exaggerated by the far right.
13-14 I acknowledge as being both far right and far left. It's a failure mode both can reach, although from different paths.
23 and 24 I acknowledge can be argued to be either neither or possibly far right. I think this is a case where traits that are present in the moderate right (citizens first, and the sort of conservatism that values national culture/religion) become exaggerated by the far right but I can see an argument that sees these points as being so far removed from the concerns of the moderate right that they are qualitatively different. ... and that's all I identified as 'far right'. One that's an exaggeration the nationalism to the point of xenophobia. One that's as much far right as far left and one that's arguable.
I'm genuinely curious, can you provide an example where you think I've used a circular definition?
---
You list a number of things that the right have endorsed, but you've omitted a number as well. The right is usually nationalistic, the left usually internationalisation. The right is usually (in the modern era) conservative culturally and socially as well as fiscally, the left is usually progressive and/or liberal. Personally, I'd add that the right advocates individual rights and responsibilities, the left focusses on collective rights and responsibilities.
Specifically the nationalism - which when distorted by extremism becomes the racism/xenophobia of the far-right and can give rise to militarism. I don't know. Maybe that's where I'm arguing circularly. The far left can be just as bloodthirsty, but it's usually classist, not racist, so I do think that racism is usually a far-right phenomenon.
And those who cannot let go of the past are doomed to be defined by it.
The past is a lesson. Not a definition.
No, the people who really hate America are stirring up and attempting to radicalise you, rather than letting you see that you can accomplish more by finding common ground and realising that while you have some differences, talking about them civilly and rationally and working together in areas of agreement is likely to be far more useful than name calling, finger pointing or tribalism. Gun rights and gun restrictions - they support and promote both in ever more extreme fashions.
I'm not American. I really hate party politics, especially when it becomes reflexive, or worse, spills over into social and civil divisivness.
Gun restrictions or not, I'll bet most reasonable people could find a common ground that didn't please everyone, entirely, but at least addressed the concerns of most. If only people, internally and externally, would stop stirring the pot.
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
Except that he avoids traditionally 'right' elements of the Nazis, irgnores that the Nazis claimed to be neither left, nor right but a syncretism of both (and hence have elements that are both traditionally left and traditionally right), listed elements that are authoritarian and by the association with authoritarian-left claims the Nazis were left.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him.
And Hitler both criticised and praised Stalin. Because, you know, Nazis are hard to define on a single axis of left and right.
They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology
Sure, if you ignore what that means, ignore Hitler's criticism of same and the elements of Nazism that are traditionally right.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles
*sigh*. OK. I'll reference by number for brevity.
1. is right (nationalism)
2. is neither (world recognition, lifting of sanctions)
3. is neither or right (demand for land)
4-6. is far-right (citizenship tied to race)
7. is left-ish (state provided opportunity for livlihood - note this is a weaker left than traditional communist/socialist left where the state provides the livlihood, not just the opportunity.)
8. right-ish (limitations on immigration. Traditionally right, and linked to the far-right racism, above, but given the period and the context may not have been as right as it now looks. Certainly not traditionally left)
9. neither or weakly left (equality of citizens. Weakly left because of statement about obligations. Better seen as authoritarian IMHO)
10. far-left (citizens must be productive and have an obligation to the state)
11. left (breaking of unearned income and abolition of debt slavery. Again, I'm moderating this from 'far-left' because of the historical situation. Definately not right)
12. unknown/arguable (abolition of war profiteering. Left if you consider any interference in a free market left. Neither if you consider production through war is frequently nationalised even by capitalist/free-market countries, right if you consider the merging of state and corporation esp. in war production)
13-14. far-left and far-right (nationalisation of industry. Corporatism or communism arrive at the merging of state and corporation from different directions but the same outcome)
15. left (age welfare)
16. unique-right-ish (creation of middle class (right), seizing of assets (left) for loan to small business (right-ish))
17. left-ish (removing land speculation, and allowing for expropriation)
18. extremist (death to certain classes of criminal)
19. neither (rule of law)
20. left-ish (education)
21. left-ish (abolition of child labour, provision of health and sporting facilities)
22. right or neither (national army)
23. neither or far-right (citizenship and the press)
24. neither or far-right (freedom of religion and/or promotion of Christianity)
25. authoritarian (centralised power)
I make about 9-10 right, anything from weakly right through far right. I make about 11 left with similar caveats. Then there's a few that don't fit even within those fairly broad catch-alls. We can argue specifics and there are some I'll accept could go either way, but that's my point.
Nazis borrowed from both left and right, criticised both, were fascist and hence authoritarian. Calling them 'left' is true, but only partly so and is just as true to call them 'right, more true to call them 'far right' and better to add an extra axis and start adding an authoritarian adjective.
If you are being intellectually honest
About that ...
The Wikipedia entry states "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics"
Hitler claimed to be neither left, nor right wing and criticised both, while using elements that were, at the time, both left and right.
Yes, Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but that quote has a couple of attestations. If you'd like to argue otherwise, I'd like to see a similar (or better) standard of evidence to support your claim. Your argument and list of traits you consider left is a mix of traints common with some politically left organisations and some authoritarian organisations (some of which are left). It ignores traditionally right elements of the Nazis (like nationalism and anti-liberalism). It's unbalanced and superficial.
The Nazis were fascist. Fascism is authoritarian.
That authoritarian governments arise from politically left parties is obvious (just as it is obvious that they also arise from politically right parties). That authoritarian governments share common traits should be obvious. Identifying authoritarian traits in politically left governments and comparing those to authoritarian traits in the nazis and declaring the nazis politically left is lazy, dishonest or ignorant.
Politically left fascism kind of exists, mostly as a criticism of the extreme left, but it's a new term and not well defined - mostly it seems to be used as an epithet.
Frankly, both ends of the political spectrum tend to look pretty similar when they get extreme enough and it would be charitable to think that this is where most people are getting confused.
TL:DR
Nazis are usually considered 'far right'. They claimed to be syncretism of left and right and criticised both while taking elements from both. They were fascist and authoratarian (redundant). Observing that the authoritarian 'far left' and nazis have something in common is obvious. Arguing that this makes nazis left is shallow.
I dare say there are some who consider this position too mild, but I also recognise that I personally hold an opinion that others find extreme and while I'm happy to explain my reasoning certainly wouldn't preach or try to persuade. If people recognise that direct purchase of diamonds supports a cartel and organisation responsible for some pretty ugly behaviour and choose to wear family jewellry instead, I'd consider that a 'win' in terms of raising awareness and eventually seeing the end of de Beers.
They aren't looking at selling them for profit.
They are looking at tarnishing the image of other man made diamonds. While they were arguing that their 'natural' diamonds were better it was an 'us vs them' argument. Supposed scarcity vs perfection. If they manufacture man-made diamonds, but refuse to grade them, drop the price to the point where they become almost disposable fashion items, then they can make other man-made diamonds seem similar. If they can manage to drive several manufacturers out of business by undercutting them then that's a bonus.
Ugly, nasty and abusive.
But by continuing to 'profit' from the spilled blood there is an argument that you are at least partially culpable.
Similarly, by wearing and showing a diamond ring, you contribute to making them appealing, acceptable, or similar and hence have a second order influence on other people purchasing 'blood diamonds'. If it's OK to wear family jewellery, is it OK to wear 2nd hand jewellry seeing as the blood has already been spilled, and if that's OK, does that mean you're creating a market for others to buy and then sell gems?
I understand that not everyone is going to evaluate the situation the same way, and may find these arguments less compelling than I do, or others. I'm offering them only as an explanation as to why some people may reject even family jewellery.
There's a significant difference between a street performer and a beggar.
One offers something before they ask for payment; the other just asks for payment. Some performers are crap. Some have heart but no talent. Others are superb. You get to judge the product before you pay.
I've stood in a queue while a busker up the street played several classical pieces on the flute. He was amazing and made the wait a pleasant one. I've waited for friends and stood on the street listening to some musicians jam. Not great, but very fun. I've bought CDs from performers I liked, attended markets where the music was provided by various street performers ranging form the competent to the talented.
I'm not sure where you've been, but I _like_ street culture. I like buskers and performers. They add to the fabric of society and asking people to donate some coin in return for what they've already given away is more than fair.
Thank you, I appreciate the link.
The judge's comments seem deeply out of touch. More interesting was the the graph and some commentary around it further on in the article. Reported knife crime does seem to be making a marked climb from a recent low.
Below the graph, the following information is provided - fatalities per year from stabbing 186, 212, and 215, respectively for 2015, 2016 and 2017. It then mentions that in the first 100 days of 2018, 53 people have been killed, some by knife. Even if we assume all 53 are knife attacks and we assume the rate remains constant, it would imply that 2018 will have a total of ~180, lower even than 2015. Why not say so? Is 'in the capital' the same as 'in London'? I'd assume so, but in that case why not make it explicit. The way the information is presented is inconsistent - I'd prefer to believe that it's just incompetence, but I'm concerned that this is designed to feed an agenda.
I find knife bans odd for the very reason the judge acknowledges - they are ubiquitous. Banning pointed kitchen blades isn't a solution. Re-shaping a blade is trivial; making a blade is trivial - it's one of the first tools mankind made, second, perhaps, only to a hammer.
the murder rate is astronomical and rising rapidly
Looking at the graph for homicide it looks like there's a general downward trend dipping to the lowest point in 2012 and rising a little since. A note is made that the 9 people killed in the London Bridge and Finsey Park attacks are included in the 2017 figures.
In fact, the graphs of all violent crime show the same downward trend across the last couple of decades.
Do you have any source of information that shows differently? The wikipedia article cautions about the difficulty of obtaining information and that the data from the police needs to be treated with caution. It's possible that there's something that's been missed, but all you have at the moment is an assertion and some vague implications about 'Muslim extremists'.
What the hell is that supposed to even mean?
Which part?
The common thread is that you are somehow fixed in your social class
Not at all. The US has reduced social mobility compared to other first world countries. The US tends to overstate the ability to change class and better onseself. Regardless, it's getting worse.
Here's a quick overview. Please note that social mobility has either remained static or decreased since the 70s. Your ability to better yourself is to be commended. That opportunities that existed in your generation are reduced or absent in this is not contradicted by your experience.
I'm not arguing that bettering yourself doesn't takes work, nor am I asking or expecting anyone to do anything about it. Except, perhaps, for folk like you who have managed it to show a little grace towards those who haven't. Hard work doesn't pay out the same way it used to.
I lived .. I worked ...
Please understand, I'm in no way saying you had it easy, or that your hard work wasn't a significant factor in your achievements. It's just that there are people who have worked just as hard for just as long and have less to show for it. And that's a trend.
Point is, altogether too many people think ...
Confirmation bias. Anecdote.
Well friend, if you think you can' t do it, you are certainly correct. If you were sold any bill of goods, it wasn't me. Enjoy wallowing in your self pity, It isn't much of a substitute for hard work and financial acumen, but it's an easy and ready excuse.
Like so many 'self-made' people you exaggerate the value of your work and ignore or are blind to the circumstances, situations and plain luck that contributed.
Thank you for your patronising tone, it's certainly been instructive.
The world doesn't, but society owes you an opportunity. That's part of the 'social contract'. And when one party doesn't keep up their end, then the other party would be insane to do anything but turn on, tune in and drop out. Oops. Wrong generation.
The X-generation seemed to pick up on some of that and got called 'slackers'. The Millennials have an even clearer view of just how lopsided the contract has become and are even more disconnected. Social mobility has been crap for generations and it's getting harder to pretend otherwise. Corporations own rights to cultural works and are making a pretty successful attempt at making sure nothing returns to the public if there's a cent to be made from it. Wages are stagnant, the 'gig' economy makes working less secure than ever and the idea that education was the way to better yourself has created a generation burdened by an all new form of debt. Hard work used to have a pretty strong correlation to success, but it's increasingly just the table stakes. After that it's down to luck or forces outside your control as to whether shady financial dealings drops the economy in a hole for long enough to screw any possibility of maintaining long term financial security.
All part of a shrinking middle class. Each generation is taking longer to get to the same place as the one before. So maybe it's them and an entire generation is throwing a tantrum. Some, maybe. But if a generation is being characterised by rejecting the social contract as offered, maybe it's not just bad parenting and unrealistic expectations.
Moonlight is an open source implementation of Nvidia's GameStream. I've not used either, just answering your 'where is ...?' question.
Yes. Meaning is contextual.
Do you have a point?
You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states
I see. It's OK when you do it because you're correct in your sweeping generalisations and attribution of characteristics of a group to an individual.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
No such argument was made
You are correct. I was generalising and attempting to be reasonably charitable in my attribution of motivation. You've clarified that for me, thank you.
Please, don't be disingenuous.
"Using a word as a pejorative" =/= "the word is a pejorative".
I answered your challenge to me and you're attacking that based on legalism and dictionary definitions while continuing to avoid the substance of my criticism.
I've made my point as clearly as I can and don't believe that it's useful to continue.
Thank you for your time.
No, it has to do with the uncomfortable truth
I could make the same accusation of you and with more evidence in this exchange than you've shown.
If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem?
If you were using it as a pejorative, absolutely. If you were using it as an ad-hominem, the same.
I'm not objecting to your content. To be plain, I think there are people who identify as 'left' who use victimhood as a way of life; who use rhetorical tricks, logical fallacies and populist tactics to stifle debate and silence dissent. I can speculate as to their motives, but it's unnecessary. Their behaviour can be criticised.
But not all people who identify as left do this, and not all who do this are left. By using 'leftist' as you have you're dismissing criticism of your own behaviour in the same manner as people who call 'troll' in the face of something they don't like.
Are you denying that twitter is likely to have a very left leaning employee base ...
Irrelevant to the criticism I'm levelling. Whether I agree or not, whether you are correct in your characterisation or not is content. Your 'flamebait' mod is deserved for the manner in which you presented it. You claim it's for the content. I disagree.
I am criticising your manner. For your dismissal of my criticism to be true, you need to demonstrate that I'm uncomfortable with your content. Please proceed. All I've seen so far are assertions and avoidance.
An uncomfortable truth is offensive to some.
Now that is a far more reasonable statement. One that doesn't use pejoratives and can be applied to people from various factions, groups and leanings.
That is not what you said in the first place, and _that_ is what I was criticising.
A crack in the bubble.
Fair answer. My last line was sarcastic, and this is a nice foil. Appreciated.
sockpuppeting still happens
It does, but I'm not sure that it's widespread enough to have anything more than the occasional, minor impact. The effort to stamp it out, completely, is likely to do more to distort discussion than the sockpuppets themselves. I'd go so far as to say that there are posters whose posts make more of a difference than the moderation of even a fairly dedicated sockpuppet.
it doesn't seem like many people metamoderate, and that system is broken and showing me unmoderated posts 3/4 of the time when I go anyway.
There have been times, years ago when there were more posts and metamoderation was new, when I'd be shown posts from weeks back and everything was moderated. That I'm seeing posts only a day old and many unmoderated suggests to me that most moderated posts are being metamoderated. I'm not seeing unmoderated posts being offered for meta moderation as broken, but a sign that the system is very healthy. I've no proof either way, 'though.
To be fair, I've no real evidence to back any of this up. Your observations match mine, but I attribute cause differently.
When an article is fresh there are fewer posts. It takes time for a range of posts to be made that will attract the attention of different mods. Time-zones differ and so there will always be an effect that sees moderation take place over a day or so. As more people moderate, you'll see a regression to the mean lead to a fairly even distribution of moderation. In short, a skewed distribution of moderation is not unusual for a new article and isn't necessarily a sign that there's anything wrong with the system.
The problem is that more people want homogeneous and boring than want lively debate, confronting ideas or uncomfortable news.
Look at how many media organisations have moved away from trying to be impartial reporters and found a niche to pander to with scandal and feel-good.
I agree with everything you've said, I just don't see it changing until people realise that echo chambers are dangerous and comfort is best had in moderation. Until then, we'll see the same cycle again and again. As something grows in popularity it will either choose to pursue an ideal of free speech (less common) or chase continued popularity (more common).
Your use of 'leftist' drew the flamebait flag. It has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with form.
To your content;
Your statement is an example of what you accuse 'leftists' of doing. You claim they call anything 'uncomfortable' trolling. You're dismissing accusations of trolling as being a defensive reaction to being presented with an uncomfortable idea. The example 'leftist' is dismissing an idea because it is uncomfortable. You are dismissing a criticism because you attribute a motivation to the person making the criticism that allows you to dismiss it and then demonstrate that very trait in your reaction to the flamebait tag - you assumed it was a reaction to your 'uncomfortable idea' and not a valid criticism of the way you expressed the idea.
Your idea isn't uncomfortable and characterising criticism of your idea as being because the critic can't handle it is condescending and cheap.
But then, perhaps I'm a 'leftist' and my reaction is just a justification for not being able to deal with your uncomfortable idea.
The ideal of an impartial press that publishes with as even a coverage as they can has proven to be less profitable than the press that panders to the masses desire for scandal and self-reinforcing ideas.
Were someone to strike out and establish a system where anyone could say anything without fear or favour, it would be frequented by a few idealists, some fringe groups that aren't welcome most places and a lot of trolls. Most people have little use for the ideal of free speech if it comes at the cost of having to wade through uncomfortable ideas, let alone the sea of comments that deliberately seek to disturb or garner a reaction.
Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc. are offering a service that people will want to use. To the degree that 'free speech' is desireable, it will be provided, but it will be heavily diluted from the ideal. There will remain some more niche services that pay more than lip service to 'free speech' but they won't be popular.
Popular or principled - I don't see something that's both existing until people change.
Do you realise you are doing pretty much exactly what you are criticising?
"Silicon valley liberals" do this, think that etc. Exactly what you criticised your friends for doing with people in the industrial states.
Can we please, everyone, stop doing this? Stop with the 'they did it first, so it justifies me doing it'?
You're right to describe the habits and assumptions of groups of people, it's useful. And you're correct in pointing out that the Democrats lost the last election in part because of failing to recognise the deep disatisfaction of much of the rural and industrial areas of the US. It's when you take those behaviours of the group and assume that all members of that group exhibit those behaviours equally that you run into the very thing you object to.
Not all blue collar people vote the party line. Not all silicon valley liberals think they do. Some do. In both directions.
Please, call out the behaviour, but do so without falling into the same trap, yourself.
All that does is create a kind of tribalism that precludes any useful compromise or working together and allows for an 'other' that we can rally against and feel like we belong. It's us and them.
One of the most effective ways to enforce group think is to introduce user moderation, and slashdot was basically the place that invented it. Just sayin.
I disagree.
The way user moderation is implemented at Slashdot seems to allow contrary opinions to exist. Nothing is modded below -1, so dogpiling is mitigated and even -1 comments are sometimes replied to. Nothing is modded over +5, so positive comments all top out to the same amount - there's no fighting for 'most votes'.
You'll still see strongly differing opinions with positive moderation in threads - something that doesn't seem to happen to the same degree on other sites.
I've yet to see evidence of collusion or deliberate suppression of ideas. I've seen mods that looked like '-1 disagree' but more often I see negative moderation for posts that are flamebait, offensive, trollish or offtopic. If you have an unpopular opinion, stating it in a way likely to attract criticism is a great way to play the victim. Rather than taking care to express yourself clearly and risking being unsuccessful in convincing people to change their minds, it's easier to be deliberately confrontational and then claim any negative response is part of 'group think'.