You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference? — Harry Hindu

Oh this one's easy. People I disagree with can be wrong, be shown to be wrong, can change their minds, can sustain and support hurt and evil by means of their belief, while the color of someone's skin does none of these things. Racists should hang from the rafters and have their life slowly squeezed out of them until they choke on their own spit and blood. Next question.

Hate was the primary reason you voted against Trump. You "progressives" like to believe that you are all open-minded and accepting of others differences, but your actions speak louder than your words. — Harry Hindu

There would seem to be some measure of truth in this. As evidence we can examine the Trump thread which seems to filled primarily with tribal emotionalism, snotty superiority poses and the like. And this is a philosophy forum, well, in theory at least.

What we may need is a thread where we carefully separate the insanity of voting for Trump (especially the 2nd time) with the valid concerns that caused many people to reach for such a radical alternative. As example, it's not crazy to be concerned about immigration given that the political class has presented no coherent idea of even how many people we wish to have living in America.

Also, while it seems beyond doubt that Trump himself is a despicable danger to the republic, it's also true that he has an instinctive street level type of understanding of the American public which surpasses that of his competitors. And that would include most of us here, as evidenced by how eagerly we remain addicted to the reality TV show which Trump is hosting.

In order to have such a thoughtful discussion we're going to have to find some way to liberate ourselves from the ego driven tribal chest thumping which has dominated this topic on this forum so far. That is, we're going to have to find some way to be a little bit less like Trump ourselves.

But then that's part if the problem. You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference? — Harry Hindu

The difference is that it's acceptable to be black but not acceptable to be a racist, and so therefore it's acceptable to say bad things about racists being racists but not acceptable to say bad things about black people being black.

You "progressives" like to believe that you are all open-minded and accepting of others differences — Harry Hindu

There's a difference between accepting homosexuals and accepting homophobia. Homosexuality is acceptable and homophobia isn't. Progressives don't argue that we should accept every difference, only that we should accept acceptable differences.

Racists should hang from the rafters and have their life slowly squeezed out of them until they choke on their own spit and blood. Next question. — StreetlightX

Ok, here's the next question. When are you going to find some outlet other than a philosophy forum for such oh-so dramatic little high school statements? How about reddit, facebook, twitter or any one of a thousand other places? Why do you have to do it here?

The Internet is huge. There are probably literally a million sites where you would fit right in with the other high school carpet chewers. Why is it so important to you to persistently degrade this site, a philosophy forum, with that which you wish to do.

You asked for a question. There you go.

Why do you have to do it here? — Hippyhead

To watch you squirm.

How about this? When you feel like making statements unfit for a philosophy forum why not confine that activity to the Lounge? Or, retire as a mod and leave the question to others to decide.

Or, ignore all such concerns, and just admit your goal is to drive the quality of content on this forum as low as you possibly can. If that's your goal, and the forum owner agrees with that agenda, then I would agree it's time for me to let this go and enjoy the ride down to forum death with you.

Nah, someone who gets their panties in a twist about a response to the equivocation of racism and disagreement - but not that egregious equivocation itself - is someone too dense to take seriously.

To all my fellow right wingers who have migrated from Parler because Big Brother/Big Tech Google and Apple have eliminated Parler from their webstores (Orwell actually touched on this in 1984, but that's for another thread), let me be the first to say: welcome to our new home. — Maw

Parler is quite amusing. It says on the homepage 'Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views', but then in its user agreement it says 'Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason to the extent Parler reasonably believes (a) you have violated these Terms or Parler’s Community Guidelines' with the Community Guidelines saying 'However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square. Examples include criminal solicitation, fraud, and nuisance.'

So how exactly is it different to any other social media like Twitter?

Probably because neither fascism and nazism have anything useful to say about the dominant economic system — Benkei

Except that China's government lead economy has done quite a lot, which in my view comes close to fascism. But of course, they see themselves as genuine marxists while nobody of the leftists on this forum see them as that (which is hilarious, actually). But hey, who cares what the actual people say to be these times.

His labour theory of value is a continuation of Adam Smith and Ricardo. — Benkei

His labour theory is a disaster.

Ok, here's the next question. When are you going to find some outlet other than a philosophy forum for such oh-so dramatic little high school statements? How about reddit, facebook, twitter or any one of a thousand other places? Why do you have to do it here? — Hippyhead

:up:

Except that China's government lead economy has done quite a lot, which in my view comes close to fascism. — ssu

Most outside observers describe China's economic system as capitalism with a strong state. What makes you differ?

And how do you define fascism?

What in the part of the definition of being "a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" does China differ according to you? Italy under Mussolini had still capitalism only "with a strong state". The difference for Mussolini and the Italian fascists was that the capitalist system was strongly controlled and lead by a strong government.

And how do you define fascism? — ssu

I wouldn't class strong economic control as a defining part of fascism. I'd say the core elements are: A strong focus on the family and the nation as the essential social organisations, a focus on "law and order" and hierarchical, autocratic rule, fetishism for the military and/or police, restrictive social order aimed at recreating an imagined past "golden age" and of course disdain for democracy.

China is drifting towards fascism under Xi, I don't know enough about the internal politics to judge how far it is on that way.

True, but leftists come in all different flavors and it can be fun to engage with some of them. In particular I've come to like engaging with libertarian socialists and Marx-inspired thinkers who might not be full Marxists yet. It was initially a little difficult for me to deal with hardline leftists, but eventually you just gotta enjoy it and go along with the insanity and play back at them a little.

'Reality has a liberal bias' ~ some bloke. — Wayfarer

A telling point. :up:

Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism". — Wikipedia

Is the universe itself left-wing or right-wing? Does mother nature provide the right environment for "...freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism" or does it cater to "...authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" or does it play both sides or neither?

Right-wing ideals seem more attuned to the way the universe functions - "survival of the fittest" doesn't leave enough room for, you know, things like freedom, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, etc. except maybe on the off chance that a major upheaval takes place in the ecosystem but even then it doesn't take long for things to go back to (right-wingy) business as usual. It could be said right-wing beliefs reflect mother nature's true colors.

Left-wing mores smack of a desire by humans to break from tradition, tradition that's just minor variations of the Darwinian trope - struggle for survival - and beat a new path based on values that humans have, in terms of geological time, only recently become aware of. I won't be completely wrong in saying that left-wing philosophy bears the mark of all of mankind's civilizations, the best they had to offer.

I do not think socialism can belong to the left and that capitalism is on the right. — Judaka

"Left" and "right" are extremely leaky generalisations about a whole host of not necessarily connected views. So it's no surprise that noone can agree on who is what.

What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label.

To anyone who doesn't think there is a leftist bias, I direct you to the poll done on political affiliations in another thread. 60% left, but more importantly 0% right. An example from this very thread came from Pfhorrest when he said “ I'm sorry about reality's well-known liberal bias. Feel free to hide from reality in a right-wing echo chamber if you really prefer.” — DingoJones

I guess the question is how do we know whether it's reality or the forum that has the left-wing bias?

It's at least possible that the consensus actually represents the best arguments.

His labour theory is a disaster. — ssu

Why don't you tell me what it is and what's wrong with it?

What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label. — Echarmion

On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning. I don't know if it gets more left than this site really, it's well beyond anything I've encountered before. Even on this forum, moderate left posters don't call people right-wing as an insult and likely wouldn't feel insulted to be called right-wing. I don't think it's more than the environment one finds themselves in, whether being called right or left could be considered an insult.

There's threads about that, as you know, Benkei.

Economists like Menger and others have far earlier shown how flawed the theories are, but the most obvious example is the little if meaningless impact of Marxian economics in current economics. Sorry, but markets and the market mechanism of demand and supply work far better to explain economic issues. Not a dubious theory based on "labor" making the value of something. What it is useful is for ideological leftist politics and not much else, actually. Especially with economics or with economic planning it simply isn't useful.

And anyway, the fixation on going through again and again the writings of the19th Century philosopher with a religious zeal and the utter lack of referring to later Marxian economics shows how dead actually the school is. We simply don't refer to, with similar zeal, to the writings of Adam Smith or Pareto and do understand that even if they did have good insights, their views are quite antiquated as the economy and the society has moved on from the 19th Century. And of course, the utter demise of the communist experiments IS proof just how wrong the economics is, because the theories surely were tried to be put into practice.

But that hardly matters as it's basically a religion and ideology than a scientific theory.

And anyway, I'm not so sure how much modern day leftism has to do with Marx anymore.

On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning. — Judaka

The converse is certainly true. It always baffles me that right-wingers use the phrases "left-wing" and "communist" as if I'm supposed to be offended by that the way they would be.

I don't even know if a forum full of classical liberals/right libertarians would even be sustainable when it comes to talk on philosophy. We'd all probably just end up talking about finances and drugs. I'm sure I have differences with the others on the right it's just not all that important to me, and if there is a difference between, say, me and Judaka we usually just express our own opinions and move on. Left wingers are often vicious with other left wingers.

I wouldn't class strong economic control as a defining part of fascism. — Echarmion

I would, because it's part of the ideology. Fascists just loath plutocracy, nearly as much as communists do.

(I assume what Mussolini thought about the role of capitalism in a fascist state matters.)

China is drifting towards fascism under Xi, I don't know enough about the internal politics to judge how far it is on that way. — Echarmion

Learn about it. I think Xi is a perfect example of someone who is an successful autocrat, starting from little things as he abolished term limits for himself. (Trump would be the unsuccessful autocrat).

"Left" and "right" are extremely leaky generalisations about a whole host of not necessarily connected views. So it's no surprise that noone can agree on who is what. — Echarmion

Agreed. I think this is because people tend to use those terms as labels (you think this, you must be right/left)) rather than categories (you think this, and thats right/left). The former pushes someone into a box (the dichotomy of left or right) the latter allows for entry into and or all appropriate boxes. Nuance I often hear it called.

What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label. — Echarmion

Well would those specific circles be the “right wing” ones? Why wouldnt someone object to the right wing term unless they were in fact in those right wing circles? I understand that right or left is insulting to some people, but what exactly are you trying to say here? Do you think a person who isnt left wing still embraces the label “left wing”?

I guess the question is how do we know whether it's reality or the forum that has the left-wing bias? — Echarmion

Does reality have a bias? If you are talking about the left or right being correct or incorrect, then I think thats showing bias, human bias rather than realities bias. I think both right and left are equally capable of being correct and incorrect.
Also, it seems clear that this forum is biased left. Thats just going to be the case when the majority is left, no?

It's at least possible that the consensus actually represents the best arguments. — Echarmion

Agreed, but how did you determine (or how would you determine) that to be the case? The false dichotomy naturally obscures the issue, as ideology and ape brain tribalism rears its ugly head.

You say: "Racists should hang from the rafters and have their life slowly squeezed out of them until they choke on their own spit and blood."

That seems quite extreme to me. Would you genuinely kill someone for having a 'wrongful' opinion? Do you not believe in freedom of conscience, thought and expression?

Also, does that include black racists? Or does your philosophy maintain that only white people can hate others on the basis of skin colour? If so, what is it that makes black people immune to this sentiment?

Let's be clear about one thing: racism is not an 'opinion'. Not liking pecan pie is an 'opinion'. Racism is active hurt from the get-go, agression against an entire class of humans - whichever class of humans, to answer your question - for their very existence. And no, I wouldn't kill them, but I'd be perfectly happy were they so shamed, stigmatized, and opressed everywhere they went that they rope themselves out of self-respect. I do not 'believe' in the 'freedom' of racist expression - I believe in it's ruthless and uncompromizing supression and rejection. There's nothing 'extreme' about this - it's basic human decency.

And before any two-bit cloud-brain vomits out the predictible 'doesn't that make you as bad as the racist?' - no, if you don't like the above, then don't be racist.

Economists like Menger and others have far earlier shown how flawed the theories are — ssu

their views are quite antiquated as the economy and the society has moved on from the 19th Century — ssu

:ok:

Seems to me that 21st century society is facing 19th century problems while using antiquated 20th century economics as a solution.

On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning. — Judaka

Perhaps all the online spaces I frequent are left-leaning, but I very rarely see anyone positively self-describing as "right wing". The actual right-wingers seem to prefer other names. Left wing is a far more common self-description.

I don't know if it gets more left than this site really, it's well beyond anything I've encountered before. — Judaka

Then I can pretty confidently say: you ain't seen nothing yet. I think even r/politics is more obviously left-leaning than this forum. To say nothing of dedicated spaces for anarchists etc.

I would, because it's part of the ideology. Fascists just loath plutocracy, nearly as much as communists do. — ssu

Well it's certainly surprising, then, that at least the two most commonly cited fascist states ended up with a lot of plutocracy.

I mean I do know about the "thid way" and that fascists certainly claim to be interested in widespread economic reforms. It's just that they seem to rarely materialize. But maybe I am ignorant, I haven't really looked into fascist regimes outside europe.

Learn about it. I think Xi is a perfect example of someone who is an successful autocrat, starting from little things as he abolished term limits for himself. — ssu

I do try. He is certainly successful. The question is what direction he will take the country in.

Agreed. I think this is because people tend to use those terms as labels (you think this, you must be right/left)) rather than categories (you think this, and thats right/left). The former pushes someone into a box (the dichotomy of left or right) the latter allows for entry into and or all appropriate boxes. Nuance I often hear it called. — DingoJones

Well said. It's hard to avoid labels in everyday discourse, of course, but they have little place in a philosophy forum.

Well would those specific circles be the “right wing” ones? Why wouldnt someone object to the right wing term unless they were in fact in those right wing circles? I understand that right or left is insulting to some people, but what exactly are you trying to say here? Do you think a person who isnt left wing still embraces the label “left wing”? — DingoJones

It's just that it seems to me that people who are in righ wing circles will usually use a more specific label for their ideas, and many more who embrace some elements of "right wing" ideas will reject the label. This doesn't seem to happen to the same extent on the left. People will usually not object to be labeled left wing even if they are only really interested in social justice rather than econmically "left" ideas.

Of course this might all be my bias talking. But it seem like we associate "right wing" with "Hitler" and therefore bad much more quickly then we do the same with "left wing" and "Mao".

Does reality have a bias? If you are talking about the left or right being correct or incorrect, then I think thats showing bias, human bias rather than realities bias. I think both right and left are equally capable of being correct and incorrect. — DingoJones

Well, no. It was tounge-in-cheek. Of course both are equally capable of being correct, but only one is actually correct (or moral, or least bad). We cannot find out via the labels though, we need to debate. I think this forum does a rather good job at the debating, for an online forum. It's not without bias, but nothing is.

Also, it seems clear that this forum is biased left. Thats just going to be the case when the majority is left, no? — DingoJones

Insofar as you're more likely to garner negative or even hostile replies to espousing "right wing" ideas, sure. But so long as the discussion remains for the most part honest and on topic, this is not necessarily a problem.

Agreed, but how did you determine (or how would you determine) that to be the case? The false dichotomy naturally obscures the issue, as ideology and ape brain tribalism rears its ugly head. — DingoJones

I agree that it'd be best to not consider labels like left and right at all when engaging in a discussion. We won't all be able to avoid it all of the time.

We simply don't refer to, with similar zeal, to the writings of Adam Smith or Pareto and do understand that even if they did have good insights, their views are quite antiquated as the economy — ssu

What

If racism is not an opinion - what is it? I don't understand what you mean by 'its active hurt from the get go.' We're not chatting here. This is a philosophy forum, and left wing politically correct dogma seeks to control Western civilisation. So can you be more specific in explaining your rationale? Because I don't understand it. It seems hypocritical in several ways; not least that it decries stereotypes as racist, or sexist, or homophobic, and then employs those same stereotypes to insist that all black people, or all women, or all gay people suffer the same discrimination and disadvantage. Why do you stereotype by skin colour - rather than height, or weight, or hair colour? Why does political correctness not just judge individuals on the basis of their moral conduct, regardless of other factors? Why do you make race an issue?