In my opinion, it's a general mindset, hard to define. But if I had to come up with a single definition, I would say that a right winger is someone who only believes in rights for the right people. Right wingers only believe in rights when it suits them, and only in freedom to behave as they deem appropriate. They are generally in favor of, if not a caste society, certainly a stratified one, where the rules and order they approve of are enforced. They see that the world should be a certain way and it is very difficult to dissuade them from that view.
Fair enough, but that sounds a bit... overly vague to me. I think if that were true nobody would ever elect right-wing leaders since they so obviously act (by your definition) only in their own interests.
I would say that a left-right divide really only makes sense in places like the USA, Canada, and England with systems that result in only two major parties. In those systems, it seems to me that right-wing ideology tends to come from a belief that might makes right, whereas left-wing views tend to come from a belief that weakness makes right. Taken to extremes, both are insane. Taken to extreme moderation, both are meaningless.
I invite you to read up on the Israeli parties from last election. As you can see, Israel has about a dozen different parties that end up significant in the Knesset for coalition-building. Also, the left-right divide in Israel tends to run almost purely along nationalism lines: Zionist (ie: Jewish nationalist) parties are defined as right-wing while anti-nationalist parties are defined as left wing. Social and economic positions get distributed with a rather vague relation to this axis. A few peculiar tidbits to take notice of:
1) The Labour Party, usually the party of the educated, secular Ashkenazi upper class, has become known as the party of entrenched interests and big business. 2) Israelis tend to have too good an understanding of what anti-nationalism would mean for them to vote for the "left wing" parties. 3) The big winners in the last elections were Kadima, Likud, and Yisrael Beiteinu. These three parties actually share much of their domestic agenda in common: land-ownership reforms (to stop real-estate shortages), better education, a social-democratic economy, promotion of science and technology industries, a strict and strong approach to stopping crime, and moderate environmental improvements.
The most controversial possible issue is Yisrael Beiteinu's demand that everyone do military or civilian national service to get welfare-state benefits, vote, or hold office. This is actually a good thing, as it would encourage moderation in politics and participation in mainstream society. But racists on both sides don't like that. If the party wasn't run by a racist bastard who lives in a settlement and has a nasty approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I'd outright endorse them. Such a bill actually came up in the last Knesset and narrowly failed; I sincerely hope it passes this time.
My point? That when national-security and nationalism is the defining issue of elections, the typical left-right divide as seen in other countries doesn't necessarily apply. Even the rightist and center-right political parties have domestic agendas that most countries would call center-left.
and who do non-US publishers pander to to tap this market?
No, sorry, I meant that in conspiracy theories the villain tends to be foreign. This allows conspiracy theorists who feel a bond of loyalty to their home country to convince themselves that its hands remain clean because it was duped and under the control of a foreign agent. It's a kind of catharsis.
Actually, you're right that something can be speculation based on very limited available facts without lapsing into conspiracy theory or prejudice as long as it's falsifiable.
However, I feel that the book pretty much fails points (B) and (C) because it appears that Bamford puts together whatever little evidence can be found for his a-priori theories (so that fails B since the a-priori theories are really just old "Protocols" crap) and that if "evidence" is falsified he'll just scrape up some more (failing point C).
But I do think that much of what's written about security and intelligence agencies amounts to little more than conspiracy theory. If all these agencies really do things they can't or won't let the public know about and aren't subject to the rule of law, how the hell is evidence going to leak out? We tend to conspiracy-theorize as these things happen, and then find out the truth (which is often, in itself, pretty awful and conspiratorial) roughly 30 years later.
So conspiracy theorizing may indicate the existence of facts outside the public view, but it gives almost no evidence for what those facts are and nearly always points the finger at some convenient scapegoat.
I'm sure the USA is one of Israel's top spying targets. I'm also sure that the USA keeps tabs on Israel. I wouldn't even by surprised at hearing about double-double-crosses or triple agents and other things normally heard about only in spy stories as Jewish intelligence agents find themselves torn between two different countries with simultaneous valid claims on their loyalty. That kind of stuff is normal in international relations, just as you said.
Actually, that sounds like a bloody good spy novel.
Just don't come telling me that Israel spying on the USA while the USA spies on Israel somehow justifies anti-Semitism or the constant stream of anti-Israel conspiracy theories that, when traced to their source, always seem to come from Muslim or Arab countries.
OK, so you think they've become a right-wing nation. And I think Avigdor Lieberman is a racist douchebag who shouldn't be allowed in politics.
Go ahead and refer to them as a right-wing state. Just acknowledge that even people you think of as right-wingers have motives and logical capabilities.
And then tell me what you mean by "right-wing". Do you mean economic rightism, social authoritarianism, or nationalism?
Is it possible to criticize the state of Israel and actions taken by the government and/or military, without being considered Anti-Semitic?
Yes, provided that the criticism is:
A) directed at Israel rather than at Jews. B) Not just an old, known anti-Semitic canard or idea with "Zionists" or "Israel" substituted for "the Jews". C) the criticism is falsifiable and based on well-sourced facts.
Unfortunately many modern anti-Semites claim to be merely criticizing Israel as a cover. You can recognize them by their failure to meet criteria (B) and (C). Everyone else, however, can criticize away.
Have you considered that your sort of "They're Israelis, they don't need motives, they just act out of blind malice like the Joker" reasoning is exactly why people on my political side of this sort of thing worry about even the slightest fuel for anti-Israel conspiracy theories?
It's Israel. Everything they do is fodder for conspiracy morons. If they "Ha'averot aleinu!" (The sins are upon us!) and beg the world's forgiveness for everything they've ever done wrong, people will just take it as evidence that their crazy theory was right all along and persecute the Israelis. If they act like they've done nothing wrong, people will assume they're hiding something. If they admit some things but not others (for example, only admitting to the things they actually did), people will assume they're covering their asses for when the real horrors come out.
There is nothing Israel can do to make people like them.
Unfortunately, yes. Us Jew types tend to get a little worried about anything that can fuel the conspiracy theories. You'd understand if you'd been the scapegoat and target of the world's hatred for a couple of millenia also.
Personally I agree with tjstork's comment below. We really don't have the slightest idea what the fuck the NSA does.
The problem is that conspiracy theories are not only unproveable but unfalsifiable. They may occasionally be true, but then so may $RELIGIOUS_TEXT_YOU_DONT_BELIEVE occasionally be true. Sometimes real evidence will vindicate them (as with some COINTELPRO stuff), but until then nobody wants to deal with a believer in an unfalsifiable, paranoid theory of how the modern world works.
Who modded this comment flamebait? It's absolutely true that an entire sector of the book-publishing industry exists to confirm people's delusions that the government is out to get them (preferably under the control of a foreign body so that America can somehow remain The Good Guys).
What's happened? Our culture decided sometime in the 50's-60's that doing well in school was for losers. We've also developed a sense of entitlement and think everything should be low cost or free, regardless of how much it costs to manufacture or develop (a co-worker who complained about the "high gas prices" when gas was $1.50 a few weeks back comes to mind.......I think if gas was free she'd complain that we weren't being paid to take the gas!). The main reason behind people thinking we're the most technologically advanced country is the idiotic "God Bless America" / "We're #1" crap that tells people being born in the US somehow makes you special and you don't have to work as hard.
We also decided never to stand up for anything at some point. Watch this video, and see how people who think they're accomplishing something manage to royally fuck themselves through "consensus processes", nonviolence, and insistence on having everyone follow rules.
Before someone else brings them up, let me say it: Eugenics Wars. We all know that science fiction comes true. We don't know much about the Eugenics Wars, but we know they will be awful and that they will be the result of genetic manipulation. So be afraid, be very afraid.
I think the more rational objections come from the notion that human evolution should proceed according to natural, rather than artificial, selection.
Personally I think that we've hit the barrier here. We're still working from the parents' genes in this technique, so natural and sexual selection are preserved. I just think that reprogramming genes willy-nilly is a bad idea.
Actually, that was 0.01% of the Miranda population.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
The world has enough stupid people in it, and too many intelligent people who think athleticism doesn't matter. Let's make a genetically-engineered ubermensch already!
Well actually, Beast with a Billion Backs sucked, but the rest were pretty damn good. I thought Bender's Game was completely back on form for Futurama.
It's better than outsourcing. Every time outsourcing comes up, people say, "Oh, these bastard firms are too cheap to actually train American workers!".
Well now an American firm is going to train American workers and everyone accuses them of trying to flood the market with cheap labor. Nice going. Microsoft is wrong when they fail to meet your demands, and when they do meet them.
Slashdot Mirror
DAMN IT, why did I spend my last mod point on that other article? MOD PARENT FUNNY!
He doesn't actually like music. He just likes being self-righteous on the internet.
In my opinion, it's a general mindset, hard to define. But if I had to come up with a single definition, I would say that a right winger is someone who only believes in rights for the right people. Right wingers only believe in rights when it suits them, and only in freedom to behave as they deem appropriate. They are generally in favor of, if not a caste society, certainly a stratified one, where the rules and order they approve of are enforced. They see that the world should be a certain way and it is very difficult to dissuade them from that view.
Fair enough, but that sounds a bit... overly vague to me. I think if that were true nobody would ever elect right-wing leaders since they so obviously act (by your definition) only in their own interests.
I would say that a left-right divide really only makes sense in places like the USA, Canada, and England with systems that result in only two major parties. In those systems, it seems to me that right-wing ideology tends to come from a belief that might makes right, whereas left-wing views tend to come from a belief that weakness makes right. Taken to extremes, both are insane. Taken to extreme moderation, both are meaningless.
I invite you to read up on the Israeli parties from last election. As you can see, Israel has about a dozen different parties that end up significant in the Knesset for coalition-building. Also, the left-right divide in Israel tends to run almost purely along nationalism lines: Zionist (ie: Jewish nationalist) parties are defined as right-wing while anti-nationalist parties are defined as left wing. Social and economic positions get distributed with a rather vague relation to this axis. A few peculiar tidbits to take notice of:
1) The Labour Party, usually the party of the educated, secular Ashkenazi upper class, has become known as the party of entrenched interests and big business.
2) Israelis tend to have too good an understanding of what anti-nationalism would mean for them to vote for the "left wing" parties.
3) The big winners in the last elections were Kadima, Likud, and Yisrael Beiteinu. These three parties actually share much of their domestic agenda in common: land-ownership reforms (to stop real-estate shortages), better education, a social-democratic economy, promotion of science and technology industries, a strict and strong approach to stopping crime, and moderate environmental improvements.
The most controversial possible issue is Yisrael Beiteinu's demand that everyone do military or civilian national service to get welfare-state benefits, vote, or hold office. This is actually a good thing, as it would encourage moderation in politics and participation in mainstream society. But racists on both sides don't like that. If the party wasn't run by a racist bastard who lives in a settlement and has a nasty approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I'd outright endorse them. Such a bill actually came up in the last Knesset and narrowly failed; I sincerely hope it passes this time.
My point? That when national-security and nationalism is the defining issue of elections, the typical left-right divide as seen in other countries doesn't necessarily apply. Even the rightist and center-right political parties have domestic agendas that most countries would call center-left.
I think Antarctic villains tend to do fine even in the United States. Like that guy... what was his name... ah Oz_!#*#*%NOCARRIER
That's not funny; it's horrifically sad. Firefly is canceled while Family Guy floods the airwaves with gorram manatee jokes.
You can't always just eject the highly concentrated brine wherever you like.
Actually, the Dead Sea needs refilling. Dump it in there.
and who do non-US publishers pander to to tap this market?
No, sorry, I meant that in conspiracy theories the villain tends to be foreign. This allows conspiracy theorists who feel a bond of loyalty to their home country to convince themselves that its hands remain clean because it was duped and under the control of a foreign agent. It's a kind of catharsis.
Actually, you're right that something can be speculation based on very limited available facts without lapsing into conspiracy theory or prejudice as long as it's falsifiable.
However, I feel that the book pretty much fails points (B) and (C) because it appears that Bamford puts together whatever little evidence can be found for his a-priori theories (so that fails B since the a-priori theories are really just old "Protocols" crap) and that if "evidence" is falsified he'll just scrape up some more (failing point C).
But I do think that much of what's written about security and intelligence agencies amounts to little more than conspiracy theory. If all these agencies really do things they can't or won't let the public know about and aren't subject to the rule of law, how the hell is evidence going to leak out? We tend to conspiracy-theorize as these things happen, and then find out the truth (which is often, in itself, pretty awful and conspiratorial) roughly 30 years later.
So conspiracy theorizing may indicate the existence of facts outside the public view, but it gives almost no evidence for what those facts are and nearly always points the finger at some convenient scapegoat.
I'm sure the USA is one of Israel's top spying targets. I'm also sure that the USA keeps tabs on Israel. I wouldn't even by surprised at hearing about double-double-crosses or triple agents and other things normally heard about only in spy stories as Jewish intelligence agents find themselves torn between two different countries with simultaneous valid claims on their loyalty. That kind of stuff is normal in international relations, just as you said.
Actually, that sounds like a bloody good spy novel.
Just don't come telling me that Israel spying on the USA while the USA spies on Israel somehow justifies anti-Semitism or the constant stream of anti-Israel conspiracy theories that, when traced to their source, always seem to come from Muslim or Arab countries.
OK, so you think they've become a right-wing nation. And I think Avigdor Lieberman is a racist douchebag who shouldn't be allowed in politics.
Go ahead and refer to them as a right-wing state. Just acknowledge that even people you think of as right-wingers have motives and logical capabilities.
And then tell me what you mean by "right-wing". Do you mean economic rightism, social authoritarianism, or nationalism?
Is it possible to criticize the state of Israel and actions taken by the government and/or military, without being considered Anti-Semitic?
Yes, provided that the criticism is:
A) directed at Israel rather than at Jews.
B) Not just an old, known anti-Semitic canard or idea with "Zionists" or "Israel" substituted for "the Jews".
C) the criticism is falsifiable and based on well-sourced facts.
Unfortunately many modern anti-Semites claim to be merely criticizing Israel as a cover. You can recognize them by their failure to meet criteria (B) and (C). Everyone else, however, can criticize away.
Have you considered that your sort of "They're Israelis, they don't need motives, they just act out of blind malice like the Joker" reasoning is exactly why people on my political side of this sort of thing worry about even the slightest fuel for anti-Israel conspiracy theories?
Anonymous Coward, usually a Digger who wandered onto Slashdot and decided to start a fight.
It's Israel. Everything they do is fodder for conspiracy morons. If they "Ha'averot aleinu!" (The sins are upon us!) and beg the world's forgiveness for everything they've ever done wrong, people will just take it as evidence that their crazy theory was right all along and persecute the Israelis. If they act like they've done nothing wrong, people will assume they're hiding something. If they admit some things but not others (for example, only admitting to the things they actually did), people will assume they're covering their asses for when the real horrors come out.
There is nothing Israel can do to make people like them.
Unfortunately, yes. Us Jew types tend to get a little worried about anything that can fuel the conspiracy theories. You'd understand if you'd been the scapegoat and target of the world's hatred for a couple of millenia also.
Personally I agree with tjstork's comment below. We really don't have the slightest idea what the fuck the NSA does.
The problem is that conspiracy theories are not only unproveable but unfalsifiable. They may occasionally be true, but then so may $RELIGIOUS_TEXT_YOU_DONT_BELIEVE occasionally be true. Sometimes real evidence will vindicate them (as with some COINTELPRO stuff), but until then nobody wants to deal with a believer in an unfalsifiable, paranoid theory of how the modern world works.
Who modded this comment flamebait? It's absolutely true that an entire sector of the book-publishing industry exists to confirm people's delusions that the government is out to get them (preferably under the control of a foreign body so that America can somehow remain The Good Guys).
What's happened? Our culture decided sometime in the 50's-60's that doing well in school was for losers. We've also developed a sense of entitlement and think everything should be low cost or free, regardless of how much it costs to manufacture or develop (a co-worker who complained about the "high gas prices" when gas was $1.50 a few weeks back comes to mind.......I think if gas was free she'd complain that we weren't being paid to take the gas!). The main reason behind people thinking we're the most technologically advanced country is the idiotic "God Bless America" / "We're #1" crap that tells people being born in the US somehow makes you special and you don't have to work as hard.
We also decided never to stand up for anything at some point. Watch this video, and see how people who think they're accomplishing something manage to royally fuck themselves through "consensus processes", nonviolence, and insistence on having everyone follow rules.
Before someone else brings them up, let me say it: Eugenics Wars. We all know that science fiction comes true. We don't know much about the Eugenics Wars, but we know they will be awful and that they will be the result of genetic manipulation. So be afraid, be very afraid.
The Face Dancers will be worse.
I think the more rational objections come from the notion that human evolution should proceed according to natural, rather than artificial, selection.
Personally I think that we've hit the barrier here. We're still working from the parents' genes in this technique, so natural and sexual selection are preserved. I just think that reprogramming genes willy-nilly is a bad idea.
Actually, that was 0.01% of the Miranda population.
The world has enough stupid people in it, and too many intelligent people who think athleticism doesn't matter. Let's make a genetically-engineered ubermensch already!
Well actually, Beast with a Billion Backs sucked, but the rest were pretty damn good. I thought Bender's Game was completely back on form for Futurama.
Remind me never to visit the Midwest.
It's better than outsourcing. Every time outsourcing comes up, people say, "Oh, these bastard firms are too cheap to actually train American workers!".
Well now an American firm is going to train American workers and everyone accuses them of trying to flood the market with cheap labor. Nice going. Microsoft is wrong when they fail to meet your demands, and when they do meet them.