Rule Clarification; Trolling

[NAOS]

Things like, from what I remember, that minorities (particularly blacks) could not be racist because of the power differential. Which I strongly disagreed with, to me that is a far left stance. But this is not the thread for a detailed debate on that.

I think I remember these conversations. If I do, then I don't think that's the most accurate way of annotating OB's stance. I think it had more to do with differentials in power, and the impact of "racially coded" actions when they come from an empowered group versus when they come from a disempowered group. I think OB was taking issue with the fact that we use the same term "racism" to apply to actions that have very different consequences.

I'll also note that, on its face, the argument you've synopsized is a wrong-footed argument, not a Leftist argument. Wrong does not equal Left.

 

[NAOS]

Things like, from what I remember, that minorities (particularly blacks) could not be racist because of the power differential. Which I strongly disagreed with, to me that is a far left stance. But this is not the thread for a detailed debate on that.

I think I remember these conversations. If I do, then I don't think that's the most accurate way of annotating OB's stance. I think it had more to do with differentials in power, and the impact of "racially coded" actions when they come from an empowered group versus when they come from a disempowered group. I think OB was taking issue with the fact that we use the same term "racism" to apply to actions that have very different consequences.

I'll also note that, on its face, the argument you've synopsized is a wrong-footed argument, not a Leftist argument. Wrong does not equal Left.

 

[Stoked]

I think I remember these conversations. If I do, then I don't think that's the most accurate way of annotating OB's stance. I think it had more to do with differentials in power, and the impact of "racially coded" actions when they come from an empowered group versus when they come from a disempowered group. I think OB was taking issue with the fact that we use the same term "racism" to apply to actions that have very different consequences.

I'll also note that, on its face, the argument you've synopsized is a wrong-footed argument, not a Leftist argument. Wrong does not equal Left.

I agree that the extremely brief nuance I stated is inadequate of truly stating OBs whole stance on the issue. Just an example of why I thought he was "far left" on that issue. But I do feel that what I stated was correct if inadequate. The amount of differentials in social/economic power do not make or break a racist action. They might affect its impact but it does not make, or prevent it from being, racism.

I agree that "wrong" is not synonymous with "left". I am sure we can both come up with many examples of the right being wrong and the left being correct. Gay marriage anyone? But there are far left policies, as well as far right polices, that are wrong and far left or right at the same time.

Of course what is "wrong" is usually an opinion as well in these debates. But that is the last I will talk about that issue in here.

Summary: While I usually disagreed, sometimes strongly, with OB I think he was a valuable poster and provided a good altering view on issues and debates. The more voices that are civil the better.

 

[NAOS]

I agree that the extremely brief nuance I stated is inadequate of truly stating OBs whole stance on the issue. Just an example of why I thought he was "far left" on that issue. But I do feel that what I stated was correct if inadequate. The amount of differentials in social/economic power do not make or break a racist action. They might affect its impact but it does not make, or prevent it from being, racism.

I agree that "wrong" is not synonymous with "left". I am sure we can both come up with many examples of the right being wrong and the left being correct. Gay marriage anyone? But there are far left policies, as well as far right polices, that are wrong and far left or right at the same time.

Of course what is "wrong" is usually an opinion as well in these debates. But that is the last I will talk about that issue in here.

Summary: While I usually disagreed, sometimes strongly, with OB I think he was a valuable poster and provided a good altering view on issues and debates. The more voices that are civil the better.

you are likely correct about this, if you are seeking validation from the court of public opinion. But that's precisely the problem! Given the radically different effects of actions from empowered groups versus disempowered groups, a single term (racism) is inadequate if we seek validation from the court of DESCRIBING PHENOMENA. In the latter, "racism" is sloppy term at best.

 

[Siro]

There are two different approaches to the definition of left and right ideologies. One focuses on the role of the individual, and the second on the authority. In the first, the right sees the individual as the primary unit in a society that all rights and obligations must be built around. The left views the individual as a sub-unit of a larger society with rules that advance those larger interests. In that individualism versus collectivism definition, anarcho-capitalism would be on the far right, while Marxism is on the far left.

Another way to look at it is through the nature of authority. This is liberty versus order kind of perspective. The left is all about maximizing the freedom of a society, while the right is about enforcing order or harmony. In this definition, autonomism would be at the far left, while fascism is on the far right. Other examples are social libertarianism for the left, and theocracy for the right.

Keep in mind that real-world systems usually combine elements from both, like communism's combination of collectivism and authoritarianism. But philosophically speaking, leftist ideals from both branches will appeal to American liberals, while rightist ideas to conservatives.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I certainly wouldn't call him far left. He might appear that way in a political context which is careening to the right, but he's classic left.

I wish he was still around. Thanks a lot, hotttnickkk

It's interesting how no matter where someone is on the political spectrum they always believe that it is careening in the opposite direction.

 

[Stoked]

There are two different approaches to the definition of left and right ideologies. One focuses on the role of the individual, and the second on the authority. In the first, the right sees the individual as the primary unit in a society that all rights and obligations must be built around. The left views the individual as a sub-unit of a larger society with rules that advance those larger interests. In that individualism versus collectivism definition, anarcho-capitalism would be on the far right, while Marxism is on the far left.

Another way to look at it is through the nature of authority. This is liberty versus order kind of perspective. The left is all about maximizing the freedom of a society, while the right is about enforcing order or harmony. In this definition, autonomism would be at the far left, while fascism is on the far right. Other examples are social libertarianism for the left, and theocracy for the right.

Keep in mind that real-world systems usually combine elements from both, like communism's combination of collectivism and authoritarianism. But philosophically speaking, leftist ideals from both branches will appeal to American liberals, while rightist ideas to conservatives.

Nice take.

To bad compromise is currently dead in politics and we cannot find a nice trust worthy candidate somewhere in the middle.

 

[moevillini]

I think one of the threads you both have in mind dealt with the matter of white privilege - and a broad generalization would be that those who have the privilege tend to deny they have it, or they minimize the benefits of it

 

[NAOS]

It's interesting how no matter where someone is on the political spectrum they always believe that it is careening in the opposite direction.

so are you hiding my messages or not?

Also, thanks for the relativist drivel.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

so are you hiding my messages or not?

Also, thanks for the relativist drivel.

I read your post because Stoked quoted it, and I read this one because you quoted me. And you're welcome for the relativist drivel.

 

[NAOS]

I read your post because Stoked quoted it, and I read this one because you quoted me.

and you respond when you have something important to add to the discussion? or... srs, what's the standard for when you allow yourself to breakdown, read the posts, AND THEN RESPOND.

 

[Dr. Jones]

For the record, I respond any time I damn well please however I damn well please.