A lot of questions with easy answers here that don't change anything.
"Is Sweden "moderate" left?"
Yes.
"Then again, an absolutist government like Stalin's is actually more something you'd attribute to the "far right", along with the leader cult and all. Not unlike Hitler, Franco or Mao. No wait, that last one was "left", right?"
The political extremes on both ends are absolutist in governance as extremes require dictators to maintain. And yes, Mao is Left. Hitler and Franco were socially right and economically left but are generally remembered as Right as their status as villains of Western history has nothing to do with their economic policies.
"Where does Gandhi fit into it all?"
No idea. I'm only familiar with his drive for Indian independence and passive resistance movement.
"Where would the likes of ISIS be located?"
Socially right, economically I'd say undefined as their state wasn't / isn't really much of a state.
Even if you come up with a scenario that what I describe above doesnt work well with (or you don't like one of my answers) that won't change the fact that "the current conventions I describe above are plenty accurate in most contexts and certainly not less so than anything you've proposed so far."
"A one-dimensional political spectrum is too coarse to properly represent political positions. I would at the very least use a two dimensional system, with the dimension being "social" and "economical" and the values on either being "restrictive" and "liberal". Anything else gets problematic."
So we forgo over a couple of centuries worth of understood language? If you want something more specific, using the universally accepted convention of adding a contextual adjective before or after "Left" or "Right" is both sufficient and less confusing as Left and Right are terms with formal political definitions. Using terms like "restrictive" that don't have a formal political definition is just inviting a debate as to what is in fact restrictive in the context of politics, Is socialized medicine "restrictive"? Some one on the Right would likely say "yes" but some one on the Left could certainly make a case for "no".
Inventing ones own language for political discourse is nothing more than a good way to confuse people much like how people get confused by America's redefining of the term "Liberal". Meanwhile, the current conventions I describe above are plenty accurate in most contexts and certainly not less so than anything you've proposed so far.
See, you did exactly what the other poster did, you took Marx and then put your own spin on it.
What Marx actually says on this subject is that there will be a mass mind set change as part of the revolution and that what you describe won't be a problem
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this will ever happen but that is what Marx actually laid out.
It was a comment sarcastically attributed to you based on you telling me that I'm not allowed to think that Hollywood should have more directors that aren't white guys ( https://slashdot.org/comments.... ) or that I have to be trying to force Hollywood types to do so just by voicing an opinion.
Just so you don't take that answer and project a bunch of shit on me again like you did before ( https://slashdot.org/comments.... ) though, I have never once said that Hollywood professionals shouldn't be able to employ who they want.
"GB isn't the best example for pluralism in politics either. If you want to see something like this, you probably have to go to Skandinavia or central Europe where 3-5 major parties are the norm that offer the whole spectrum from left to right."
Does this greater number of major parties enlarge the scope of their country's political spectrum though? I've never heard of fiscal conservatism on par with the US represented by any major political party in any of these regions and none of these countries have major parties that I know of that are all that far to the Left by European standards. Key phrase here being, "that I know of".
"This is probably why it's hard to make US and European people understand each other when it comes to political terms. "Liberal" alone is already pretty much the opposite of what the other one would expect from the label."
Americans talking to Europeans just need to use the terms "Left" and "Right". Most things translate pretty well after that. It works for me at least.
All I was responding to was your claim about no new American parties.
"What choice do you have if you have two parties that only differ on minor details"
Addressing this as a separate conversation, it occurs to me that major political parties (as in ones that truly have a shot at running the government) in other Western nations are fairly close together in political beliefs as well. It seems to me that the big difference between major parties in the US and the rest of the Western world is that the parties in the US hover around a center that is farther to the Right on many issues than in the rest of the West. For instance, fiscal conservatives in most of these nations (for instance, Tories in the UK) don't question the need for socialized medicine as a party, they just advocate for the trimming of costs.
This isn't anything I'm holding firm beliefs on and maybe I'm off on it, it's just something that occurred to me when I was reading what you wrote.
I realize this is happening completely separate from Trumps clearly announced trade wars (including the repeated naming of China as a primary target) but it sure seems incredibly odd put in that context.
"When there’s a detour because of road construction, do you continue to drive straight ahead at full speed, mowing down the road crew, because that was your original plan?"
You do if the whole point of driving by the detour was to smash into the road crew.
These sanctions were supposed to have the effect they are having on ZTE. They were supposed to hurt them a lot. Now he's reversing course because the sanctions actually worked? What type of example is that supposed to set for the future? "Sure, the US might put crippling sanctions on us over our actions but if we apologize they'll make it all better!"
Read all three links and yup, they do a decent job of describing you in the link I posted.
It's very nice you're being so thorough by first posting definitions to what you were doing and then going as far as to verify I understood them even though that was implied when I attributed the definitions to you.
Of course wikipedia isn't immutable fact but neither is something written in a book. Wikipedia has plenty of editors and has been shown to be about as accurate as conventional encyclopedias ( https://www.cnet.com/news/stud... ). There's no reason why it can't be used as a source in a casual internet discussion to a high degree of confidence. Plus, it's certainly better than just saying "cause I say so" or citing completely anecdotal information. Particularly when the wikipedia article does not deal in any kind of controversial material.
"Relax a little..." If you find something unpleasant with how I'm addressing you maybe you shouldnt end your posts with snippy comments
Also, thanks for correcting me on the typo I made. Everyone likes to have small and completely inconsequential mistakes they made pointed out. What a truely great service you provided for me.
For starters, China isn't really communist. They call themselves as such but more of their economy is privately controlled than not. That's not very communist.
Also, I seem to be a little fuzzy on my Marx here. Which writings of his are you referring to with "expected to work themselves to death for he glorious party"?
Everyone considers theiir "own" in some shape or form. Tribalism is built into the human psyche. Politics, race, sports teams, nationalism, the family unit, are just a bare minutia of the issues humans practice tribalism in.
"Making everyone think about statistical racial differences in economic attainment is not going to bring statistical equality to the West."
I couldn't disagree more. Problems are almost never solved until they are identified. For instance, pretending race doesn't exist will do nothing to solve major economic inequalities between races. Actually identifying the problem then allows for the exploration of solutions.
By your thinking we can't even properly examine a problem like a race or races within America being significantly behind others economically because race is some sort of bad word.
"No, it isn't race."
Yeah, no kidding.
"Race CORRELATES with a problem but does not CAUSE it."
Thanks but I am well aware of that. That does nothing to make race irrelevant on the topic of income inequality though. Black people in this country are disproportionally poor. To even attempt to solve that you have to examine their general realities.
Let me ask you this. Black folks in America statistically receive longer jail terms than white people for the same crime. How do we even see that problem (let alone try to solve it) if we don't accept race as a reality?
I love how you redicule some one for coming to a conclusion on something they know nothing about and then in the same post come to a conclusion about what happened.
Do you have some hidden insights that the above poster doesnt or are you just a hypocrite?
As far as I can tell why those planning appeals took place aren't public knowledge (at least I didn't see anything on a quick search). Those two people could have had perfectly legitimate reasons to file their appeals.
The only elitism I seem to see here is you way up there on your high horse
"The last time you actually got a new party it took a civil war."
Your history is failing you again. Assuming the "you" is a typo, no new US political party was formed in regards to the civil war. The Democratic and Republican parties both had pretty much the same platforms before and after the civil war aside from the issues brought up directly by the war and slavery, which was resolved during the war.
Furthermore, as I suggested before, I'd call the pretty comprehensive political realignment of the two parties that took place in the 60's and 70's as on par with creating new political parties. You're welcome to disagree with that but I won't care.
"Right. You know this is just you saying they aren't over and over again?"
No, it's me saying it over and over again with at least a little backing evidence. Wikipedia clearly does not define them as soap operas.
"I assure you that they are mostly scripted. I have friends in TV, I know people who have been on reality shows."
That's funny, one of my best friends is a producer for reality TV and web content and I can assure you that while there is usually direction it is not scripted in any conventional sense. If they are in fact fully scripted like a soap opera then they are no longer reality TV.
"...you'll keep repeating it over and over again?"
You mean like you are?
"Reality TV is the same as soap operas!", "No they aren't, here's how wikipedia defines the examples you gave", "Reality TV is the same as soap operas!"
"You're reinforcing racial divisions. It is stupid if that isn't want you want to do. Either admit that is your objective or stop being stupid."
Sorry but from where I'm sitting you're the one being stupid. Racial divisions exist, pretending they don't won't make them go away. Me pretending race doesn't exist won't stop it from being a useful tool for marketing. Me pretending it doesn't exist won't change any of the social issues that effect some races in this country more than others. Me pretending race doesn't exist won't change the sense of identity most people have in regards to their race.
At least you've made a little process though. You've gone from "race doesn't exist" to "it will go away if you don't believe".
What the hell are you talking about? I'm getting meta? "New parties" are new parties.
There's nothing "meta" about what I'm telling you here. You said ""But as you might have noticed it's possible for new parties to actually emerge and play a role in the political setup of the country. Try that in the US.", and I pointed to incredibly clear examples of it happening in the US. I directly addressed what you said with clear examples of new parties forming in the US.
Don't get snippy with me because you don't know your US history.
You're making a completely different point here from what I was responding to. I responded to the following
"But as you might have noticed it's possible for new parties to actually emerge and play a role in the political setup of the country. Try that in the US."...and then I showed that new parties do form and take on prominent roles in the US through both party transformation and literal new party creation.
Now if you want to talk on that entirely new subject, that's fine. Yes, the US typically only has two major parties at any given time, even when a new one is forming an old one will be dying off. However, most first world country's only have two to three major parties that have a real chance at running their government so we aren't that much different. The big difference between the US and a lot of first world nations is that sometimes smaller parties are needed for coalition building and thus can actually influence government through this process. This allows them to pick up more votes as they actually have a small amount of relevance. Don't kid yourself though, none of these lesser parties stand a chance at actually running their country's government themselves.
At least in the majority of other first world countries.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of questions with easy answers here that don't change anything.
"Is Sweden "moderate" left?"
Yes.
"Then again, an absolutist government like Stalin's is actually more something you'd attribute to the "far right", along with the leader cult and all. Not unlike Hitler, Franco or Mao. No wait, that last one was "left", right?"
The political extremes on both ends are absolutist in governance as extremes require dictators to maintain. And yes, Mao is Left. Hitler and Franco were socially right and economically left but are generally remembered as Right as their status as villains of Western history has nothing to do with their economic policies.
"Where does Gandhi fit into it all?"
No idea. I'm only familiar with his drive for Indian independence and passive resistance movement.
"Where would the likes of ISIS be located?"
Socially right, economically I'd say undefined as their state wasn't / isn't really much of a state.
Even if you come up with a scenario that what I describe above doesnt work well with (or you don't like one of my answers) that won't change the fact that "the current conventions I describe above are plenty accurate in most contexts and certainly not less so than anything you've proposed so far."
"What is "left"? What is "right"?"
Left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"A one-dimensional political spectrum is too coarse to properly represent political positions. I would at the very least use a two dimensional system, with the dimension being "social" and "economical" and the values on either being "restrictive" and "liberal". Anything else gets problematic."
So we forgo over a couple of centuries worth of understood language? If you want something more specific, using the universally accepted convention of adding a contextual adjective before or after "Left" or "Right" is both sufficient and less confusing as Left and Right are terms with formal political definitions. Using terms like "restrictive" that don't have a formal political definition is just inviting a debate as to what is in fact restrictive in the context of politics, Is socialized medicine "restrictive"? Some one on the Right would likely say "yes" but some one on the Left could certainly make a case for "no".
Inventing ones own language for political discourse is nothing more than a good way to confuse people much like how people get confused by America's redefining of the term "Liberal". Meanwhile, the current conventions I describe above are plenty accurate in most contexts and certainly not less so than anything you've proposed so far.
See, you did exactly what the other poster did, you took Marx and then put your own spin on it.
What Marx actually says on this subject is that there will be a mass mind set change as part of the revolution and that what you describe won't be a problem
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this will ever happen but that is what Marx actually laid out.
It was a comment sarcastically attributed to you based on you telling me that I'm not allowed to think that Hollywood should have more directors that aren't white guys ( https://slashdot.org/comments.... ) or that I have to be trying to force Hollywood types to do so just by voicing an opinion.
"I'll show you my link if you show me yours."
Well here are four separate studies that all reach the same conclusion.
https://repository.law.umich.e...
https://www.ussc.gov/research/...
http://people.terry.uga.edu/mu...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...
I can probably find more if needed.
Well you certainly said as much.
Just so you don't take that answer and project a bunch of shit on me again like you did before ( https://slashdot.org/comments.... ) though, I have never once said that Hollywood professionals shouldn't be able to employ who they want.
"GB isn't the best example for pluralism in politics either. If you want to see something like this, you probably have to go to Skandinavia or central Europe where 3-5 major parties are the norm that offer the whole spectrum from left to right."
Does this greater number of major parties enlarge the scope of their country's political spectrum though? I've never heard of fiscal conservatism on par with the US represented by any major political party in any of these regions and none of these countries have major parties that I know of that are all that far to the Left by European standards. Key phrase here being, "that I know of".
"This is probably why it's hard to make US and European people understand each other when it comes to political terms. "Liberal" alone is already pretty much the opposite of what the other one would expect from the label."
Americans talking to Europeans just need to use the terms "Left" and "Right". Most things translate pretty well after that. It works for me at least.
No, you're missing the point. You're saying one thing and I'm both saying and showing you data suggesting that it's the other.
All I was responding to was your claim about no new American parties.
"What choice do you have if you have two parties that only differ on minor details"
Addressing this as a separate conversation, it occurs to me that major political parties (as in ones that truly have a shot at running the government) in other Western nations are fairly close together in political beliefs as well. It seems to me that the big difference between major parties in the US and the rest of the Western world is that the parties in the US hover around a center that is farther to the Right on many issues than in the rest of the West. For instance, fiscal conservatives in most of these nations (for instance, Tories in the UK) don't question the need for socialized medicine as a party, they just advocate for the trimming of costs.
This isn't anything I'm holding firm beliefs on and maybe I'm off on it, it's just something that occurred to me when I was reading what you wrote.
I realize this is happening completely separate from Trumps clearly announced trade wars (including the repeated naming of China as a primary target) but it sure seems incredibly odd put in that context.
So did we just win the trade war with China?
"When there’s a detour because of road construction, do you continue to drive straight ahead at full speed, mowing down the road crew, because that was your original plan?"
You do if the whole point of driving by the detour was to smash into the road crew.
These sanctions were supposed to have the effect they are having on ZTE. They were supposed to hurt them a lot. Now he's reversing course because the sanctions actually worked? What type of example is that supposed to set for the future? "Sure, the US might put crippling sanctions on us over our actions but if we apologize they'll make it all better!"
Read all three links and yup, they do a decent job of describing you in the link I posted.
It's very nice you're being so thorough by first posting definitions to what you were doing and then going as far as to verify I understood them even though that was implied when I attributed the definitions to you.
Great, so you just defined exactly what you were doing in the post I linked to above. Thanks I guess?
Of course wikipedia isn't immutable fact but neither is something written in a book. Wikipedia has plenty of editors and has been shown to be about as accurate as conventional encyclopedias ( https://www.cnet.com/news/stud... ). There's no reason why it can't be used as a source in a casual internet discussion to a high degree of confidence. Plus, it's certainly better than just saying "cause I say so" or citing completely anecdotal information. Particularly when the wikipedia article does not deal in any kind of controversial material.
"Relax a little..."
If you find something unpleasant with how I'm addressing you maybe you shouldnt end your posts with snippy comments
Also, thanks for correcting me on the typo I made. Everyone likes to have small and completely inconsequential mistakes they made pointed out. What a truely great service you provided for me.
For starters, China isn't really communist. They call themselves as such but more of their economy is privately controlled than not. That's not very communist.
Also, I seem to be a little fuzzy on my Marx here. Which writings of his are you referring to with "expected to work themselves to death for he glorious party"?
So siting a source is bad where as not doing so makes you correct. Or in other words, actual data = bad, pure opinion = good.
Gotcha.
Everyone considers theiir "own" in some shape or form. Tribalism is built into the human psyche. Politics, race, sports teams, nationalism, the family unit, are just a bare minutia of the issues humans practice tribalism in.
"Making everyone think about statistical racial differences in economic attainment is not going to bring statistical equality to the West."
I couldn't disagree more. Problems are almost never solved until they are identified. For instance, pretending race doesn't exist will do nothing to solve major economic inequalities between races. Actually identifying the problem then allows for the exploration of solutions.
By your thinking we can't even properly examine a problem like a race or races within America being significantly behind others economically because race is some sort of bad word.
"No, it isn't race."
Yeah, no kidding.
"Race CORRELATES with a problem but does not CAUSE it."
Thanks but I am well aware of that. That does nothing to make race irrelevant on the topic of income inequality though. Black people in this country are disproportionally poor. To even attempt to solve that you have to examine their general realities.
Let me ask you this. Black folks in America statistically receive longer jail terms than white people for the same crime. How do we even see that problem (let alone try to solve it) if we don't accept race as a reality?
I love how you redicule some one for coming to a conclusion on something they know nothing about and then in the same post come to a conclusion about what happened.
Do you have some hidden insights that the above poster doesnt or are you just a hypocrite?
As far as I can tell why those planning appeals took place aren't public knowledge (at least I didn't see anything on a quick search). Those two people could have had perfectly legitimate reasons to file their appeals.
The only elitism I seem to see here is you way up there on your high horse
Heh, Trump is less popular than Jimmy Carter after the botched mission to rescue those hostages the Iranians were holding.
"The last time you actually got a new party it took a civil war."
Your history is failing you again. Assuming the "you" is a typo, no new US political party was formed in regards to the civil war. The Democratic and Republican parties both had pretty much the same platforms before and after the civil war aside from the issues brought up directly by the war and slavery, which was resolved during the war.
Furthermore, as I suggested before, I'd call the pretty comprehensive political realignment of the two parties that took place in the 60's and 70's as on par with creating new political parties. You're welcome to disagree with that but I won't care.
"Right. You know this is just you saying they aren't over and over again?"
No, it's me saying it over and over again with at least a little backing evidence. Wikipedia clearly does not define them as soap operas.
"I assure you that they are mostly scripted. I have friends in TV, I know people who have been on reality shows."
That's funny, one of my best friends is a producer for reality TV and web content and I can assure you that while there is usually direction it is not scripted in any conventional sense. If they are in fact fully scripted like a soap opera then they are no longer reality TV.
"...you'll keep repeating it over and over again?"
You mean like you are?
"Reality TV is the same as soap operas!", "No they aren't, here's how wikipedia defines the examples you gave", "Reality TV is the same as soap operas!"
"You're reinforcing racial divisions. It is stupid if that isn't want you want to do. Either admit that is your objective or stop being stupid."
Sorry but from where I'm sitting you're the one being stupid. Racial divisions exist, pretending they don't won't make them go away. Me pretending race doesn't exist won't stop it from being a useful tool for marketing. Me pretending it doesn't exist won't change any of the social issues that effect some races in this country more than others. Me pretending race doesn't exist won't change the sense of identity most people have in regards to their race.
At least you've made a little process though. You've gone from "race doesn't exist" to "it will go away if you don't believe".
What the hell are you talking about? I'm getting meta? "New parties" are new parties.
There's nothing "meta" about what I'm telling you here. You said ""But as you might have noticed it's possible for new parties to actually emerge and play a role in the political setup of the country. Try that in the US.", and I pointed to incredibly clear examples of it happening in the US. I directly addressed what you said with clear examples of new parties forming in the US.
Don't get snippy with me because you don't know your US history.
You're making a completely different point here from what I was responding to. I responded to the following
"But as you might have noticed it's possible for new parties to actually emerge and play a role in the political setup of the country. Try that in the US." ...and then I showed that new parties do form and take on prominent roles in the US through both party transformation and literal new party creation.
Now if you want to talk on that entirely new subject, that's fine. Yes, the US typically only has two major parties at any given time, even when a new one is forming an old one will be dying off. However, most first world country's only have two to three major parties that have a real chance at running their government so we aren't that much different. The big difference between the US and a lot of first world nations is that sometimes smaller parties are needed for coalition building and thus can actually influence government through this process. This allows them to pick up more votes as they actually have a small amount of relevance. Don't kid yourself though, none of these lesser parties stand a chance at actually running their country's government themselves.
At least in the majority of other first world countries.