Left vs. Right

[Kassiana]

Today's political situation reminds me of a satire song I love called Commie Friends. On most political threads I see, there's so much judging by group and condemnation that you might as well not speak up. Mention that maybe women shouldn't have to bear children they don't want to? You're a Commie and are going to hell. Now. Oh, and you also supported every decision Bill Clinton ever made, even if (like me) you violently disagree with his pro-war foreign policy.

I don't know what to do about it. Everyone on the Right I've ever debated with, no exception, has assumed that because I think maybe the government should help the poor get out of poverty, I am a Clintonista communist. I try to explain that IMO Clinton was a right-winger when it came to economic policy and was a barely-adequate president, and then they insist I must not be a "liberal." What, like I can't define who I am for my own damned self?

I've just given up on trying to debate with Rightists because it doesn't do any good. If I object to a position espoused by a Rightist, I'm "against" them and want them in jail or something else icky. I think maybe Watchmen had it right...only a major tragedy, like the destruction of Manhattan and deaths of millions, will ever get us to see that we're all people and may well have good motives, even if we're "the other."

"I know what you're up to.
I can see it in your eyes.
It's time to topple the free market system you despise.

"I know what you're up to.
There's no use trying to hide
You're going to try to fill this generation with your lies!

"And everything you say and do, I see right through
I know your kind!
It's all a ploy just to destroy the bourgeoisie
Do you think I'm blind?

"Don't think I don't know what you're up to
You know I'm going to stop you
You and all your Commie friends.

"Don't think I don't know what you're up to
There's a place reserved in hell just for
You and all your Communist friends!" --Commie Friends, See Colin Slash

 

[Quiet_Cool]

--They are where I live. And I think they may well be right. I don't think Bush understands anyone who isn't rich, and thus doesn't get what to do about them.

I agree that they don't understand people who have less money, but I simply won't criticize everything they do because of it. I do believe they're trying, regardless of what other want to believe about it.

But you have to give credit where it's due, in both regards. Simply put: Not understanding has nothing to do with hatred. Nothing to do with hatred whatsoever. In fact, it would stand to reason (to a degree, anyway) that you need some level of understanding to acquire motivation to hate, even if only a small one.

Barbara's comments made it quite clear how uninformed the Bush's are as to the state of those in poverty.

Q_C

 

[Kassiana]

Not understanding has nothing to do with hatred.

No. But they both cause tremendous harm, particularly when the person without understanding makes no effort to gain said understanding.

To turn to another topic:
And in the case of political back and forths like this, most people have no interest in gaining understanding of their political opponents, much less in admitting they were wrong about them. That is greatly harmful, and IMO some of that HAS to be based in hatred. Such systematic lying about/mischaracterization of a person based on political ideology doesn't happen through misunderstanding.

 

[Guest]

I agree that they don't understand people who have less money, but I simply won't criticize everything they do because of it. I do believe they're trying, regardless of what other want to believe about it.

But you have to give credit where it's due, in both regards. Simply put: Not understanding has nothing to do with hatred. Nothing to do with hatred whatsoever. In fact, it would stand to reason (to a degree, anyway) that you need some level of understanding to acquire motivation to hate, even if only a small one.

Barbara's comments made it quite clear how uninformed the Bush's are as to the state of those in poverty.

Q_C

Yes.

Very uninformed, and thus unfit to govern a country where so many are in that financial state.

 

[Kassiana]

Yes.

Very uninformed, and thus unfit to govern a country where so many are in that financial state.

What she said.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

On most political threads I see, there's so much judging by group and condemnation that you might as well not speak up. Mention that maybe women shouldn't have to bear children they don't want to? You're a Commie and are going to hell. Now. Oh, and you also supported every decision Bill Clinton ever made, even if (like me) you violently disagree with his pro-war foreign policy.

I don't know what to do about it. Everyone on the Right I've ever debated with, no exception, has assumed that because I think maybe the government should help the poor get out of poverty, I am a Clintonista communist. I try to explain that IMO Clinton was a right-winger when it came to economic policy and was a barely-adequate president, and then they insist I must not be a "liberal." What, like I can't define who I am for my own damned self?

I've just given up on trying to debate with Rightists because it doesn't do any good. If I object to a position espoused by a Rightist, I'm "against" them and want them in jail or something else icky. I think maybe Watchmen had it right...only a major tragedy, like the destruction of Manhattan and deaths of millions, will ever get us to see that we're all people and may well have good motives, even if we're "the other."

Nicely said, but this doesn't apply only to the right. By no means. It applies to the general political atitude of damned near everyone. Leftists are no more understanding or thoughtful of others opinions than rightists, they just support other opinions.

Labels have gotten in the way to an extreme. I don't know if it's simply easier for people to label others and point fingers, or if it's easier for those of us who don't have 50 hrs. a day to research the political scene to group people together to feel we have a better understanding of what each politician/candidate for political office stands for. I'd guess it's a combination of the two.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

No. But they both cause tremendous harm, particularly when the person without understanding makes no effort to gain said understanding.

To turn to another topic:
And in the case of political back and forths like this, most people have no interest in gaining understanding of their political opponents, much less in admitting they were wrong about them. That is greatly harmful, and IMO some of that HAS to be based in hatred. Such systematic lying about/mischaracterization of a person based on political ideology doesn't happen through misunderstanding.

You just described every politicain in office today...

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Yes.

Very uninformed, and thus unfit to govern a country where so many are in that financial state.

No, they aren't fit to govern. I never really said they were.

You're arguing with someone not present.

But I don't believe John Kerry had a clue either. That's the problem. You can feel otherwise if you like, but let's not go in that direction on this thread.

Q_C

 

[Kassiana]

this doesn't apply only to the right.

I didn't say it did. However, no one on the left in any political debates I've participated in have attacked me unfairly, so I admit my experience with being hurt during political debates is personal to me.

A male friend of mine was raped by a woman, and the nasty responses he got to that from "feminists" and people opposed to male on female rape...let's just say I hope most men who are raped get kinder treatment than he.

 

[amicus]

Kassiana....

I be gonna try to show you that all 'right wingers' are not beyond comprehension.


This is a little mental exercise about how 'government' can not, logically care for the needs of all the people, all the time.

Let us begin with 100 souls. Let us also say that of that one hundred, 20 are young children and 20 are elderly.

We are left with 60 employable humans, about half will be male and half female and some will be sick or injured and some of the females may be gravid.

So we have about one half, or 50 of the original 100 who are fully functioning, give or take.

Let us postulate a primitive situation, just to better illustrate.

Of the 50, we need two of them to act as fire watchers, and/or guards against wild animals. Those would most likely be young single males of good physical health and must have some honesty and integrity to protect the people as they sleep.

Nowadays we call them Cops.

Now Cops gotta eat too, so the remaining 48 have to pony up support for those two Cops.

Now if you like basic math, you'll love this:

If it takes X amount to support one individual, then the 48 remaining productive citizens must each produce 2.2X to provide for all 100 people.

Okay, so now we have this little community of souls hard at work, living life as they choose, hunting gathering and making babies left and right.

Some get sick, need medical care.

Is one Healer sufficient?

Now there are 47 productive souls providing for 53 who are, in one way or another, dependent.

Ah, does our little group have or need a leader?

2 Cops
1 Doctor
1 Chief

And now only 46 souls provide for 54.

I am sure you can see where I am headed with this.

Government produces nothing, not a single twinky or hot dog or appendectomy.

Thus each person employed by government, aside from the police, military and the court system, contribute nothing to that society and are a continual drain on the productive people who live within the confines of the group.

Government possesses nothing outside what it confiscates from the people.

The more resources, the more X you take from each productive person, the less they have, the poorer they become.

A family unit cares and provides for each other and contributes to the 'protection' of the wider community.

Go back to the original 100 humans. Some grandiose utopian schemes take the entire productive output of those 100 (100X), consume and redistribute the resources as the leader chooses.

This system rewards both the productive and the non productive in an equal manner.

Work and you live, don't work and you live.

It does not take long before those who work understand that they are being forced to work for others and they soon depart for greener pastures, more freedom, a new land...OMG...the USA is filling with immigrants from oppression.

"Don't it always seem to be, ya don't know what you've got til it's gone..." (with apologies to Joni Mitchell)


amicus the troubadour...

 

[Guest]

No, they aren't fit to govern. I never really said they were.

You're arguing with someone not present.

But I don't believe John Kerry had a clue either. That's the problem. You can feel otherwise if you like, but let's not go in that direction on this thread.

Q_C

No. And to be fair, I just jumped in the middle here.

Public school teachers across this country are required to take classes in sensitivity training, understanding other ethnicities, understanding students living in shelters, foster homes, single parent homes, all sorts of situations, including that of poverty.

I understand if a president wouldn't really have the time to receive training in those areas, but if he would surround himself with truly brilliant people he would do a better job.

Forget rewarding your buddies, for a moment, and choose experts in those fields that will help you govern the way you should.

And THAT is something that is unforgiveable. To be that clueless? And cheerfully so?

It's shameful. And embarrassing.

 

[Kassiana]

Wow. I just had a flashback to an old Doonesbury cartoon. Lacey Davenport, his eccentric elderly Senator, was trying to explain to rich people in Palm Beach how serious homelessness was. The last panel had a rich woman exclaiming, "Why, that's terrible! Why don't they move to their summer homes?"

I never thought I'd know someone who thought that way in reality, but I guess I know a whole family of someones who think that way, and they're in charge of my country.

 

[Guest]

Wow. I just had a flashback to an old Doonesbury cartoon. Lacey Davenport, his eccentric elderly Senator, was trying to explain to rich people in Palm Beach how serious homelessness was. The last panel had a rich woman exclaiming, "Why, that's terrible! Why don't they move to their summer homes?"

I never thought I'd know someone who thought that way in reality, but I guess I know a whole family of someones who think that way, and they're in charge of my country.

That's an excellent illustration.

To quote from another cartoon, Schultz' Peanuts -

"We're doomed."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

And in the case of political back and forths like this, most people have no interest in gaining understanding of their political opponents, much less in admitting they were wrong about them. That is greatly harmful, and IMO some of that HAS to be based in hatred. Such systematic lying about/mischaracterization of a person based on political ideology doesn't happen through misunderstanding.

You're exactly right, K, and well said. That's what I was hoping to do with this thread: not discuss specific issues, but try and find out what we have to do to begin listening to each other again. You really can't expect anyone to listen to you if you doen't listen to them

You open your mouth, and immediately you're characterized as liberal or conservative, or rather, "bleeding heart" or "fascist". No one wants to discuss, they all want to preach. No one wants to listen, they all want to talk. No one wants to understand the other side, they want to convert them.

No one ever says, "Let me hear your side. Let me see if I can understand." They say, "Let me hear your side. I'll tell you why you're wrong." And so we end up shouting at each other.

Not only does this happen on this board, but--much worse--it's happening in real politics too. You have legitimate doubts about Iraq? You're a traitor. You think Iraq was the right thing to do? You're a fascist. Legitimate discourse becomes impossible.

The reason you don't go ad hominem in debate is not because it's ungentlemanly. It's because once you call your opponent an asshole, he stops listening to you. It's no longer possible to talk.

We just started getting "Air America" here on AM, the liberal version of conservative talk radio, with Al Franken and other people. I started listening, and at first I got off on it. Franken's pretty funny, and it was great to hear my side playing the Rush Limbaugh game, foaming at the mouth and villifying all these fascist righties.

But after a couple days I turned it off. It was embarrassing. I like Al Franken, but these other talk jocks were no better than listening to Rush himself. It was the same sleazy demagoguery, only from the other side. That isn't the answer. It's only more of the problem.

Edited to Add: And Mea Culpa too. I'm not saying I'm better than this. But I am tired of it.

 

[amicus]

I should just leave this alone...as I am one who calls and gets called 'asshole; more often than not.

But a thought came along...'never give an inch'...had to google and find the title of the Ken Kesey novel of the early 70's, Sometimes a great Notion, made into a film by Paul Newman and Henry Fonda.

Kassiana, whom Mab quoted and agreed with, both seem to think that through understanding an opposite point of view, we can then compromise in a gentlemanly fashion and make progress.

That is called politics.

But seminal thinking requires dedication and devotion to an idea and even an ideal. It also spills over to the worlds of art and literature and even business and industry.

It is the passion of an idea or a vision, a single minded pursuit of focused attention and only that which will produce new and unique ideas and products.

And the call for compromise on this forum is slightly humorous as one can count the true conservatives here on one finger.

That be me.

Rather, I think it is the forlorn hope that the total failure of the left as a political party and an ideaology can be staved off by offering a compromise.

"Never give an inch!"


amicus...(I have a nasty job to confront the Liberals, but if not me, who and if not now, when?)

 

[kendo1]

Evening Ami, good to see you again.

 

[Alex756]

When it is said no one on the other side actually wants to discuss, I have to ask, how did the speaker enter the subject?

If you start a 'political debate' with me by saying, "Anyone watching faux news is a brainwashed idiot" yeah I'm not going to be too receptive... I've had some very good discussions about where I am coming from versus where other people are coming from.

Its been said the right is the one attacking with personal attacks, well sure that would be the perception if you're on the left, but let me say if you are on the right, the hits from the left are just as hard.

After a while you figure out there are certain forums that whatever you say, you are going to labeled a right wing, red state hick who can't talk right, hates women and hates blacks.

-Alex

 

[Quiet_Cool]

After a while you figure out there are certain forums that whatever you say, you are going to labeled a right wing, red state hick who can't talk right, hates women and hates blacks.

-Alex

That hits close to home.

An on a similar note, far too much of this is mere perspective. Referencing what I just bolded and italicized: If you get twenty people in one room to talk abortion, ten pro-choice and ten pro-life, we'll have half of them talking about babies and another half discussing the woman's body. Do you really think there's common ground for these people? It's no longer opinion on this topic, so much as perspective.

ANd what Alex said here holds true overall. It's not the parties, because that's generalizing too, but in fact, the individuals involved. Unfortunately, most individuals aren't overly interested in listening.

Q_C

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

Undecided

In the United States, as in the United Kingdom, it isn't the dedicated followers of Left or Right that decide an election.

It is those that are undecided.

Convincing the swing vote to move one way or the other is not achieved by the arguments we have in the AH (or the GB) but by persuasion and presentation. And unfortunately, what the individual thinks will be good for him/herself, not the wellbeing of the state as a whole.

There are many people who will always vote Democrat.
There are many people who will always vote Republican.

Nothing would convince them to change. It is a waste of time to try.

Jeanne D'Artois aka Og

 

[amicus]

Hello Kendo, you too, thank you...sighs...may not be for long as a Hurricane watch was just displayed on my computer for the area I live in. Hmmm...didn't expect that for a day or so.

Here comes Ophelia


later...


amicus http://english.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=119510

 

[kendo1]

Ophelia is probably the last thing you need, over there.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You're exactly right, K, and well said. That's what I was hoping to do with this thread: not discuss specific issues, but try and find out what we have to do to begin listening to each other again. You really can't expect anyone to listen to you if you doen't listen to them

You open your mouth, and immediately you're characterized as liberal or conservative, or rather, "bleeding heart" or "fascist". No one wants to discuss, they all want to preach. No one wants to listen, they all want to talk. No one wants to understand the other side, they want to convert them.

No one ever says, "Let me hear your side. Let me see if I can understand." They say, "Let me hear your side. I'll tell you why you're wrong." And so we end up shouting at each other...

I understand what you're trying to say, Dr. M, but I don't think we're all just venting here for the sake of venting. Argument and debate have a purpose. Hopefully, through the course of it, people can find common ground and an optimal course of action. Some of that process is pointing out the fallacies and contradictions in other points of view.

I'll freely admit that I argue hard; but I don't think I argue unfairly. I try not to call people here names - my hard words are for politicians and their ideas and policies. To the extent that people identify themselves with those things, I suppose they can take offense, but I'm mindful of trying to keep the argument and ideas separate from the person in my posts.

I can understand the other side of an argument, and I can try to use that understanding to undermine the inaccurate beliefs that lead to poor choices based on that side of the argument. I can write forcefully without "shouting".

But not all positions on a given issue are equally valid. All people have worth; the same can't be said for all points of view.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The reason you don't go ad hominem in debate is not because it's ungentlemanly. It's because once you call your opponent an asshole, he stops listening to you. It's no longer possible to talk.

Yes. Preaching to the choir really doesn't accomplish much. If we can't talk to those we disagree with, then argument is really just another Rush pose - blustering away to the already converted.

(But I really must put in a good word for being gentlemanly as well. It's a useful sort of social contract designed to prevent just the sort of rancorous, vicious, unproductive fault lines we're discussing.)

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

And the call for compromise on this forum is slightly humorous as one can count the true conservatives here on one finger.

That be me.

Mandatory post to straighten out the obvious semantic mishap:

No.

You, and most other people here, are radicals, the opposite of conservatives. I've seen true conservative views uttered here now and then. But not from you.

Just that. Carry on.

 

[amicus]

Semantics: "The study of meaning, also called 'significs'.

Semantic: "of or arising from the different meanings of words..."

"...You, and most other people here, are radicals, the opposite of conservatives. I've seen true conservative views uttered here now and then. But not from you..."

You simply attempt to obfuscate.

What was your point?

"...Originally Posted by amicus
And the call for compromise on this forum is slightly humorous as one can count the true conservatives here on one finger.

That be me..."


You question, semantically, my definition of 'conservative?' In the context of this forum, I represent an 'arch' conservative viewpoint.

And I suppose you are not a Liberal? Was that the point?

Sleep with pigs, you smell like a porkchop.


Amicus has but a small sense of ribald humor. (humour) for the retarded.


smiles...