Labels...are they really helping us?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

There has been much discussion across many thread in this forum that tend to group people into some labelled faction in a very broad sense without much consideration beyond caricatures.

Labels such as:

• liberal
• conservative
• progressive
• Republican
• Democrat
• Socialist
• leftie
• rightie
• "winger"
• etc.

But are these labels actually helpful? Are they useful? Are they applied appropriately? To broadly?

Some definitions would help.

People rarely define their terms.

For example, I would consider myself a "liberal" in the classical sens of that word meaning that I advocate the greatest amount of personal and economic liberty. However because of my positions in favor of economic liberty, I have often been called a conservative, "rightie" (even a "winger") or a Republican (even though I oppose much of what the modern Republican party has done and proposes to do.)

Some terms are cleverly chose to imply a negative opposition.

For example, the term "progressive" is meant to suggest that a person favors forward progress while subtly implying that those who do not call themselves "progressives" are either in favor of stagnation or regression.

But, perhaps more importantly, can these labels always be consistently applied to an individual or are they more appropriately applied, in order this way:

1. the actions they actually take
2. the words they speak
3. the entire collection of actions and words (what happens when these are not consistently part of any one of these definitions?)
4. the label they claim for themselves

Perhaps we can get some clarity on the definition and applicability of these labels.

Originally Posted by segovius

I think in a way- from one perspective - all these labels are the same thing.

I suspect there really is only ONE form of extremism. Let's call it Right-wing. Because I truly believe it is.

Look at it like this:

Right-wing thought leads naturally to Fascism and Nazism - and Fascism and Nazism lead naturally to something like the Holocaust.

This is inherent in Right-wing thought...it is based on a cult of the promotion of the individual, glorification of 'Nationalism'a and Leaders, over-emphasis on the Military, talk of 'Freedom' leading to war to achieve it.

All these things are naturally Right-wing and lead naturally to the horrors we saw in the 20th century if one goes far enough to the extreme of the Right.

Oth, Left-Wing thought does NOT lead naturally to these things. It is based on equality, peace, real freedom and justice etc.

That is not to say that Left wing entities cannot also lead to their own atrocities but where they do it is because they have been contaminated with Right-wing ideals somewhere down the line.

Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself...name a Left-wing perp of atrocities and you will find Right-wing contaminants.

1) China: massive human rights abuses in the name of Communism - massive Capitalistic and materialistic production.

2) Russian gulags: Communism for the starving masses - Rolls Royces and champagne for the Politburo.

And on and on...

In the final analysis it seems pretty undeniable that there is really only two camps:

1) Sane rational humanist people who want to live in harmony and peace

2) Extreme violent maniacs - whether they be individuals or Governments and their troops

Unfortunately, it is pretty much proven that crossing from 1) to 2) above is really indistinguishable from moving from the Left to the Right.

Originally Posted by segovius

I think in a way- from one perspective - all these labels are the same thing.

I suspect there really is only ONE form of extremism. Let's call it Right-wing. Because I truly believe it is.

Originally Posted by segovius

I think in a way- from one perspective - all these labels are the same thing.

I suspect there really is only ONE form of extremism. Let's call it Right-wing. Because I truly believe it is.

Look at it like this:

Right-wing thought leads naturally to Fascism and Nazism - and Fascism and Nazism lead naturally to something like the Holocaust.

This is inherent in Right-wing thought...it is based on a cult of the promotion of the individual, glorification of 'Nationalism'a and Leaders, over-emphasis on the Military, talk of 'Freedom' leading to war to achieve it.

All these things are naturally Right-wing and lead naturally to the horrors we saw in the 20th century if one goes far enough to the extreme of the Right.

Oth, Left-Wing thought does NOT lead naturally to these things. It is based on equality, peace, real freedom and justice etc.

That is not to say that Left wing entities cannot also lead to their own atrocities but where they do it is because they have been contaminated with Right-wing ideals somewhere down the line.

Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself...name a Left-wing perp of atrocities and you will find Right-wing contaminants.

1) China: massive human rights abuses in the name of Communism - massive Capitalistic and materialistic production.

2) Russian gulags: Communism for the starving masses - Rolls Royces and champagne for the Politburo.

And on and on...

In the final analysis it seems pretty undeniable that there is really only two camps:

1) Sane rational humanist people who want to live in harmony and peace

2) Extreme violent maniacs - whether they be individuals or Governments and their troops

Unfortunately, it is pretty much proven that crossing from 1) to 2) above is really indistinguishable from moving from the Left to the Right.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

There has been much discussion across many thread in this forum that tend to group people into some labelled faction in a very broad sense without much consideration beyond caricatures.

Labels such as:

• liberal
• conservative
• progressive
• Republican
• Democrat
• Socialist
• leftie
• rightie
• "winger"
• etc.

But are these labels actually helpful? Are they useful? Are they applied appropriately? To broadly?

Some definitions would help.

People rarely define their terms.

For example, I would consider myself a "liberal" in the classical sens of that word meaning that I advocate the greatest amount of personal and economic liberty. However because of my positions in favor of economic liberty, I have often been called a conservative, "rightie" (even a "winger") or a Republican (even though I oppose much of what the modern Republican party has done and proposes to do.)

Some terms are cleverly chose to imply a negative opposition.

For example, the term "progressive" is meant to suggest that a person favors forward progress while subtly implying that those who do not call themselves "progressives" are either in favor of stagnation or regression.

But, perhaps more importantly, can these labels always be consistently applied to an individual or are they more appropriately applied, in order this way:

1. the actions they actually take
2. the words they speak
3. the entire collection of actions and words (what happens when these are not consistently part of any one of these definitions?)
4. the label they claim for themselves

Perhaps we can get some clarity on the definition and applicability of these labels.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

segovius, perhaps you've missed my point. First is the issue of defining the labels and second is the issue of properly applying them in a way that is helpful (if that's even possible.)

Let's take your post:

It appears that you are trying to define what "right-wing" means or is. That's a good start.

You seem to be saying that if someone or some group engages in one or more of these things (and there might be others):

• cult of the individual
• glorification of nation and leaders
• over-emphasis on military
• talk of 'freedom' leading to war

They are to one degree or another "right wing." Is that correct?

Furthermore you begin a definition of what "left-wing" means here:

So a person or group who promotes one or more of these things:

• equality (of what?)
• peace
• "real" freedom (what is "real" freedom?)
• justice

is to one degree or another "left wing." Is that correct?

Some additional questions. Can a person "be" both left and right wing if they do some of each of these things? Admittedly they might be muddled or inconsistent in their thinking and actions...but certain actions they engage in or promote might be considered left or right wing so getting a line on how to classify (i.e., label) that person as a whole might be tough.

In summary I'm trying to get more clarification on what you mean by "right" vs. "left" (by the way these are the two worst labels since they seem the most un-anchored in any kind of objective reality.)

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No, let's not...because that is freaking crazy. Really, it's straight-up delusional.. Extremism can be all the things you described...the desire to deprive people of life, liberty, property. Do you mean to suggest that only those on the Right are capable of such actions and desires?

If so, how do you reconcile that with all of the progressive Left-wing politicians who favor massive regulation, confiscatory tax rates and onerous restrictions and controls on everything from what we watch on TV to what we put into our bodies?

That's not extremism?

How do you reconcile your thoughts with existence of groups such as the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front? They are certainly far Left organizations, ones who use violence against people and the environment (quite ironic, btw).

Originally Posted by segovius

My theory is that when they happen they are a drift to the Right. Even if they happen in a Left-wing context.

Similarly, where Freedom and Justice occur they are a drift to the Left - even in a Right-wing context.



That is a drift to the Right. Check the Nazis for the text-book example of all you have just stated.



I'm not talking about extremism....I am an extremist myself in a certain way.... extremism is something different. Sometimes it is even necessary.



They have adopted Right-wing tactics then - the use of violence. That's not necessarily wrong.

If a burglar breaks into my house I'm going to knock his lights out with a blunt object...that's a classic Right-wing approach (defend the castle by violence) and I'd adopt it temporarily to achieve my ends at that time.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

I am beginning to understand your black and white view point. Similar to your Christian vs Xian definition. Youa re not talking left and right, but merely using those terms as they make sense in your mind. You are talking more utopian vs base and violent (well that may be taking it too far but...).

Unless I have missed your meaning again. I may have, you have a tendency to ramble sometimes.

Originally Posted by segovius

No, you've pretty much nailed it...

I wouldn't call it black and white though - just going by what the original thing is.

Take the Christianity example: if you take the original thing you would say that killing and amassing riches (for example) are antithetical and opposed to it.

Yet, historically these things have not only found their way in but arguments have been structured to say why they SHOULD.

If you take the original - or essential - Left and Right formulations you'd get something like this (and I think most people would agree):

Left: tends to oppose war, tends to oppose rampant capitalism etc

Right: tends to accept war is sometimes necessary, tends to embrace capitalism.

Those are some of the essentials no? And there are others.....

The confusion arises when the Left or Right drift into each other's territory and then apologists try to point to this as a typical example that proves their point.

You can see a classic text-book example of this in the many Right-wingers who try to argue Hitler was Left-wing.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Makes things a bit clearer. Lack of understanding of what you are basing your premise on typically leads to frustration since we are meaning different things when we are talking and assumptions about what the other is actually saying are incorrect. Not saying this will usher in an era of agreement between us, but should lower frustration levels a bit on my side.

Originally Posted by segovius

See...Left Wing Harmony and Peacemaking in action!!!

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Are you calling me a lefty?

Originally Posted by segovius

Hahah...well...if the cap fits!

Seriously though, I think the original point about labels is interesting. to some extent labels are needed more when the actual reality is missing don't you think?

Originally Posted by segovius

My theory is that when they happen they are a drift to the Right. Even if they happen in a Left-wing context.

Similarly, where Freedom and Justice occur they are a drift to the Left - even in a Right-wing context.



That is a drift to the Right. Check the Nazis for the text-book example of all you have just stated.

I'm not talking about extremism....I am an extremist myself in a certain way.... extremism is something different. Sometimes it is even necessary.

They have adopted Right-wing tactics then - the use of violence.

That's not necessarily wrong.

If a burglar breaks into my house I'm going to knock his lights out with a blunt object...that's a classic Right-wing approach (defend the castle by violence) and I'd adopt it temporarily to achieve my ends at that time.

Originally Posted by segovius

No, you've pretty much nailed it...

I wouldn't call it black and white though - just going by what the original thing is.

Take the Christianity example: if you take the original thing you would say that killing and amassing riches (for example) are antithetical and opposed to it.

Yet, historically these things have not only found their way in but arguments have been structured to say why they SHOULD.

If you take the original - or essential - Left and Right formulations you'd get something like this (and I think most people would agree):

Left: tends to oppose war, tends to oppose rampant capitalism etc

Right: tends to accept war is sometimes necessary, tends to embrace capitalism.

Those are some of the essentials no? And there are others.....

The confusion arises when the Left or Right drift into each other's territory and then apologists try to point to this as a typical example that proves their point.

You can see a classic text-book example of this in the many Right-wingers who try to argue Hitler was Left-wing.

Originally Posted by segovius

I think in a way- from one perspective - all these labels are the same thing.

I suspect there really is only ONE form of extremism. Let's call it Right-wing. Because I truly believe it is.

Look at it like this:

Right-wing thought leads naturally to Fascism and Nazism - and Fascism and Nazism lead naturally to something like the Holocaust.

This is inherent in Right-wing thought...it is based on a cult of the promotion of the individual, glorification of 'Nationalism'a and Leaders, over-emphasis on the Military, talk of 'Freedom' leading to war to achieve it.

All these things are naturally Right-wing and lead naturally to the horrors we saw in the 20th century if one goes far enough to the extreme of the Right.

Oth, Left-Wing thought does NOT lead naturally to these things. It is based on equality, peace, real freedom and justice etc.

That is not to say that Left wing entities cannot also lead to their own atrocities but where they do it is because they have been contaminated with Right-wing ideals somewhere down the line.

Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself...name a Left-wing perp of atrocities and you will find Right-wing contaminants.

1) China: massive human rights abuses in the name of Communism - massive Capitalistic and materialistic production.

2) Russian gulags: Communism for the starving masses - Rolls Royces and champagne for the Politburo.

And on and on...

In the final analysis it seems pretty undeniable that there is really only two camps:

1) Sane rational humanist people who want to live in harmony and peace

2) Extreme violent maniacs - whether they be individuals or Governments and their troops

Unfortunately, it is pretty much proven that crossing from 1) to 2) above is really indistinguishable from moving from the Left to the Right.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Be gone. I know one label that probably perfectly and accurately fits you and what you're doing right now.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

If the label is properly defined and applies, then yes that label could be applied to a person. Otherwise no. Now be gone.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

I agree with a lot of this.

Words are important. And this is, not to put too fine a point on it, about hate.

"Psychotic", for example, is a word with decades of associations.

A "psycho" is someone who kills women in the shower in a Hitchcock film. It's someone who hits you in the street for no reason. People commit murders on "drug psychosis" and "go psycho" in a fight, and so on. Those are the associations in popular culture and everyday speech, for better or worse.

Psychos, of course, should be jailed and hospitalised. Liberals? Well, I'll let you make your own mind up. BUT THEY ARE PSYCHOTIC!

Yes, it isn't enough any more to label people you disagree with as wrong-headed, or hypocritical, or full of themselves. Now they have to be mentally ill. "Psychotic", indeed.

And when people object, properly, you can pull out a medical definition and say "Look, this is what psychosis is!".

And every time, again and again, you get to repeat the word "psychotic", pretending you haven't chosen it for its associations. "Liberals are psychotic!" "Liberals are psychotic!

It makes it easier to hate. It makes it easier to convince others to hate.

To start a thread calling for a discussion of labels, insisting on the right to call people you disagree with "psychotic"? Come back when you're prepared to admit that you want to the right to call people any fucking thing you like, and besides, liberals deserve it anyway.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Be gone. I know one label that probably perfectly and accurately fits you and what you're doing right now.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I didn't say that or anything like it. You've now confirmed my initial suspicions.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Apparently the label psychotic is bad.

However labels like racist, sexist, warmonger, denialist, misogynist, right-winger, greedy, corporate overlord, etc. are all fine. They in no way are attempts to associate a person with hate.

When having a discussion of labels, it is also apparently okay for one poster to spam and harass another poster with claims of hypocrisy and tell them they cannot participate in discussion until they jump through whatever mental hoops the other has crafted.

Everyone here has used labels. Harassing someone to repudiate all labels before they can have a discussion on labels isn't the point nor is it the topic.

Labels like many other things are amoral. They can clarify thinking or they can limit it. The choice is up to the individual.

That said, don't harass or attempt to govern your fellow posters. Please discuss content, not their personal actions for that is clearly a ruse for personal attacks which will be reported as such.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Apparently the label psychotic is bad.

However labels like racist, sexist, warmonger, denialist, misogynist, right-winger, greedy, corporate overlord, etc. are all fine. They in no way are attempts to associate a person with hate.

When having a discussion of labels, it is also apparently okay for one poster to spam and harass another poster with claims of hypocrisy and tell them they cannot participate in discussion until they jump through whatever mental hoops the other has crafted.

Everyone here has used labels. Harassing someone to repudiate all labels before they can have a discussion on labels isn't the point nor is it the topic.

Labels like many other things are amoral. They can clarify thinking or they can limit it. The choice is up to the individual.

That said, don't harass or attempt to govern your fellow posters. Please discuss content, not their personal actions for that is clearly a ruse for personal attacks which will be reported as such.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Sego,

Is there a particular reason why when posting you make up conversations and quotes instead of addressing actual content here in the forum?

I understand chanting and mantras and so forth for I use them when running and doing certain exercises or activities. Why reaffirm this caricature in your brain when you have people right here in front of you acting differently? When I chant, it is to either focus or sometimes to ignore certain things like pain when running longer distances.

What are you ignoring?

Originally Posted by trumptman

That said, don't harass or attempt to govern your fellow posters. Please discuss content, not their personal actions for that is clearly a ruse for personal attacks which will be reported as such.