View Full Version : A perspective on the Left and identity politics
I was reading a piece: "England’s National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) has voted for an academic boycott on Israeli institutions of higher education that do not renounce Israel’s “apartheid policy.”
[...]
"Also today, the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the largest labor union in Canada, voted in favor of a boycott of Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians.
Are these boycotts anti-Semitic? Maybe not, but, as I noted the other day, they are hypocritical, sanctimonious, and deeply wrong. No one is demanding a boycott of Russian academics over Russia’s occupation of Chechnya and the atrocities committed there (which dwarf, to put it mildly, Israel’s human rights abuses in the occupied territories). Or, as Ari Paul points out in an article at Reason.com, a boycott of Chinese academics because of the occupation of Tibet and other assorted abuses by the Chinese regime. Or ... sadly, the list could go on and on.
Partly, this double standard is rooted in the all-too-familiar leftist mentality which strenuously condemns bad behavior by Western or pro-Western governments while turning a blind eye to the far worse misdeeds of communist and/or Third World regimes. (It’s not quite clear into which category Putin’s Russia falls.) But the movement to boycott Israel is especially repulsive because it combines this anti-Western, anti-democratic bias with an element of “picking on the little guy.” No one in his or her right mind, even among the British intelligentsia or Canadian public employees, would propose boycotting American institutions because of the occupation of Iraq. Why? Because, obviously, such a boycott would cripple any institution’s ability to conduct its business; in the case of an academic boycott, it would cripple a country’s academic life and scientific research. But lashing out at Israel as a proxy for America is something one can do with minimal inconvenience.
An American boycott of any institution that participates in this shameful enterprise would be an appropriate response. It would be too much to expect the American Association of University Professors, but the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of Teachers should step up to the plate."
that included this commentary:
I’d simply add that I think one of the prime reasons the Western left, for all its purported “progressivism,” is so concerned with punishing Israel is that Israel, like, say, Michael Steele or Thomas Sowell, has wandered off the progressive plantation and rejected the narrative assigned it by those who presume to speak for a larger identity agenda. Which is to say, kibbutz culture has given way, over the years, to a strong capitalist system—and so Israel is considered by many on the left to be a traitor to the cause of worldwide socialism, just as surely as Steele and Sowell (among others) are considered race traitors for rejecting the political narrative assigned them by those who have assumed the mantle of “authentic” blacks.
This then lead to the below statement by a blogger which I thought some might find interesting:
"Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.
If one is smart, then one believes in progressivism.
If one believes in progressivism, then one is smart.
Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in progressivism.
And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
Sasaki Kojiro
06-01-2006, 19:28
That's not true at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :furious3:
:bigcry: :bigcry:
Duke Malcolm
06-01-2006, 20:32
Have you never seen a socialist speak? Perhaps you do not have them there, but the Scottish Socialist Party and Scottish National Party both just propose ill thought-out policies and if anyone says anything against it they shout at them and call them "imperialist", "Tory", "selfish" or someother such name...
edit:I might as well add George Galloway -- you saw him take on the Senate committee. It was beautiful, but exactly as described above.
It's so true, only one end of the political spectrum uses emotional arguments. I've never seen a right wing person descend to that level. And when Malin describes progressives as "cockroaches, (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45652)" or Coulter says that the best way to talk to liberals is with a baseball bat (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter), or when Limbaugh states that "what's good for al-Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh)," or when Robertson and Falwell blamed the ACLU and the People for the American Way for the 9/11 attacks (http://www.actupny.org/YELL/falwell.html), well, that's not emotional.
That's just truthiness.
Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?
Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?
Yes. Emotionalism and/or incoherence is no reason for a death sentence. The hyperbole of the question does illustrate the point in some fashion however.
Well, lawyer, if over-the-top humor counts as yet another confirmation of your thesis, let's tackle this from another angle.
And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.
Again, you write this as though only people on the left end of the political spectrum have an emotional investment in their ideology. Where's your evidence for this? I know leftists can be blind, screaming idealogues, but so can right-wingers.
The perspective you put forth applies equally well to any idealogue of any party anywhere. How you construe this to apply to only one group is puzzling.
Proletariat
06-01-2006, 22:05
Uhm, if the original arguement threw out Al Franken and Micheal Moore as examples, than maybe the Limbaugh and Coulter counters would be appropriate. I don't think it was aimed at the cable tv-cheerleader riff-raff.
Nevertheless, my question still stands. What evidence exists that leftists have a greater emotional and personal investment in their ideology? As I posted in an earlier thread, there was a lovely experiment that showed partisans, both left and right, use the emotional part of their brain rather than the rational part when confronted with questions that were unfavorable to their chosen candidates. No report that either group reacted more emotionally.
The original post strikes me as a gussied-up flame, imputing a negative human characteristic to a group with whose politics the poster does not agree, and without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Vladimir
06-01-2006, 22:18
No time for an intelligent response. Good thread Pindar!
As to another point made in this flame-ready thread, the post regarding how staunch leftists are unyielding and illogical in their pursuit of orthodoxy, again, this is a characteristic of many political movements. Example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1786227,00.html):
Wing and a prayer: religious right got Bush elected - now they are fighting each other
Campaigners who fail to keep the hardline faith face threats and intimidation
Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Wednesday May 31, 2006
In his consulting room in a suburb of Montgomery, Alabama, gastrologist Randy Brinson is a worried man. A staunch Republican and devout Baptist, Dr Brinson can claim substantial credit for getting George Bush re-elected in 2004. It was his Redeem the Vote initiative that may have persuaded up to 25 million people to turn out for President Bush. Yet his wife is receiving threats from anonymous conservative activists warning her husband to stay away from politics.
"They've been calling my house, threatening my wife," said Dr Brinson. "The first time was on a day when I was going up to Washington to speak to Republicans in Congress. Only they knew I'd be away from home. The Republicans were advised not to turn up to listen to me, so only three did so."
The reason he has fallen foul of men whose candidate he helped re-elect is that he has dared to question the partisan tactics of the religious right. "Conservatives speak in tones that they have got power and they can do what they want. Only 23% of the population embraces those positions but if someone questions their mandate or wants to articulate a different case, for the moderate right, they are totally ridiculed."
In his office in Washington DC, Rich Cizik, vice-president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the largest such umbrella group in the US, is also feeling battered. His mistake has been to become interested in the environment, and he has been told that is not on the religious right's agenda.
Mr Cizik, an ordained minister of the Evangelical Presbyterian church and otherwise impeccably conservative on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell research and homosexuality, believes concern for the environment arises from Biblical injunctions about the stewardship of the Earth. The movement's political leadership, however, sees the issue as a distraction from its main tactical priorities: getting more conservatives on the supreme court, banning gay marriages and overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling.
"It is supposed to be counterproductive even to consider this. I guess they do not want to part company with the president. This is nothing more than political assassination. I may lose my job. Twenty-five church leaders asked me not to take a political position on this issue but I am a fighter," he said.
Another Washington lobbyist on the religious right told the Guardian: "Rich is just being stupid on this issue. There may be a debate to be had but ... people can only sustain so many moral movements in their lifetime. Is God really going to let the Earth burn up?"
Such partisan tactics are perhaps to be expected in a divisive political climate, with both sides excoriating each other in moralistic terms in a way that has not been seen in Europe for many years - and which is increasingly incomprehensible to many Europeans.
To Judge Roy Moore, who was unseated as chief justice of the Alabama supreme court in 2003 for refusing to remove a five-tonne granite monument on which were carved the Ten Commandments from the court's foyer, that just shows how far Europe has slid.
Judge Moore, campaigning in the state's primaries to supplant the incumbent Republican governor, during a visit to address a women's club in the town of Enterprise, told the Guardian America was falling into Godlessness, too: "That's it, we're going the same way England is now, without God. Is it true that Islam is taking over there?" he asked.
This is a common idea in rightwing circles and, if some of the arguments sound overheated - a recent radio discussion in Virginia on stem-cell research took it as read that only Christians were capable of moral decisions - the religious right has reason to fear that its reach is declining.
"I would rather put my .38 pistol in a child's room than put a computer or a television set there. The devil's crowd is working how to get to your children," declared Brother Richard Emmett in his Mothering Sunday sermon, broadcast to audiences in eastern Tennessee. There is a sense that some of the evangelists - using the medium that Brother Emmett reviles so much - may have overreached themselves. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, and Pat Robertson have embarrassed their followers by antics such as blaming the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 on "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make an alternative lifestyle ... to secularise America".
More influential than either is James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts daily to the nation from the organisation's Colorado Springs headquarters. Focus on the Family refused to speak to the Guardian, saying "we have no interest in assisting your research", but Washington journalist Dan Gilgoff says Mr Dobson has moved towards an increasingly partisan stance. Mr Dobson endorsed Mr Bush in 2004 but also unsuccessfully rallied the faithful in defence of Judge Moore's monument and threw his weight behind Harriet Miers' disastrous candidacy for the supreme court last year. Nevertheless, Mr Gilgoff says, "people are scared of crossing him". Mr Dobson is one of those warning Mr Cizik off environmental issues.
But these are ageing leaders, with no comparable successors in sight. And, after years of campaigning against abortion and gays, they have not succeeded in getting their way on either issue. There have been victories, but the president's pledge of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual partnership has not happened.
That does not mean religion is going away as a lobbying force. Dr Brinson has started advising the Democrats on how to get more religion into their politics in the hope of winning the constituency back in the presidential race of 2008. And, if religious broadcasting grates, as one woman in Tennessee told me: "I just turn up the rock music on the radio."
Sasaki Kojiro
06-01-2006, 22:41
http://www.liberals-suck.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/allrightgear/189074
http://www.wanderlist.com/whyliberalssuck
http://whyliberalssuck.blogspot.com/
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/mrmagoo/20.html
http://www.urbanvancouver.com/aggregator/sources/289
These are all from the first page of a google search for "liberals suck".
Byzantine Prince
06-01-2006, 22:43
Again, you write this as though only people on the left end of the political spectrum have an emotional investment in their ideology.
Lol, Lemur, don't you see what just happened? He took something ironic you said to make a joke, instead of replying to the actual point you put forth. Now you ask again. What would happen if you hadn't said " Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?"? What would he say?
I think it's quite obvious that he has a bias, remember his pro-Bush thread. Pro-Bush!?! :laugh4: What do you expect?
It's still interesting that he put forth this topic, because it reflects what I think of him, someone apears intelligent superficially, but yet believes what he does. :laugh4:
Byz, I don't think there's any reason to question Pindar's intelligence. There are plenty of smart people with whom I disagree.
What irks me about his original post is that (a) it imputes a universal human negative exclusively to people with whom he disagrees, and (b) in a very lawyerly fashion he distances himself from his unpleasant and ungenerous message by using quotes from others' posts.
[edit]
The whole thrust of his post is "Aren't people who think differently from me and mine a bunch of incoherent, emotional smacktards?" I mean, really. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this thread winds up as locked as his last one. Which will, doubtless, confirm his thesis that his opponents are all immature, illogical and generally witless.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/FLAMEWAR.gif
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/FLAMEWAR.gif
Isn't that always the result of stuck on emotional idealogue postions end up anyway?
Which is what the last two sentences of the initial post states
It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
And yes their are pundits on the right that have just as much of a problem, but with the diversity of left leaning political sprectrums there on the surface does seem to be a higher degree of it coming from the left versus the right.
Kagemusha
06-01-2006, 23:35
Ok i replaced certain keywords of this statement and can someone on the "right" deny this statement?
This then lead to the below statement by a blogger which I thought some might find interesting:
"Conservatism is not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.
If one is smart, then one believes in conservatism.
If one believes in conservatism, then one is smart.
Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in conservatism.
And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in conservatism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.
This tends to make the right more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
When one looks at a coin.There are two sides that look different.But are still same material and act in same purpose.:bow:
Tribesman
06-01-2006, 23:49
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
There can be nothing more emotional and angry than a crazy right winger debating abortion , homosexuality , tax , gun-control , immigration , religeon .............
So the tendancy of the emotional left is balanced by the tendancy of the emotional right .
Again, you write this as though only people on the left end of the political spectrum have an emotional investment in their ideology. Where's your evidence for this?
I did not make this claim. The idea is the identity politics of the Left and the emotional investment it typically entails.
The whole thrust of his post is "Aren't people who think differently from me and mine a bunch of incoherent, emotional smacktards?" I mean, really.
Actually, it's not. The interest of the post is the rhetorical posture it describes.
Soulforged
06-02-2006, 00:24
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
There can be nothing more emotional and angry than a crazy right winger debating abortion , homosexuality , tax , gun-control , immigration , religeon .............
So the tendancy of the emotional left is balanced by the tendancy of the emotional right .Exactly, specially about gun control.
The first post in it's first pragraph clearly states "etc-ism" I think that he wanted to say any ideology in general, and not only the left. This followed by the fact that everything he states applies to any side of the spectrum. By the way, I agree with everything he said, and it has happened to me several times, I interiorized some conviction as part of my own identity and refused to believe otherwise, luckyly that has changed for the best. However I've my doubts about this thread: Are you implying that you (Pindar) do not interiorize convictions as part of your own identity? Wich would not be true since you're a religious being. Or that the majority of the so called right wind, specially conservatives, do not tend to interiorize such convictions? By the way, if you believe in all that you posted, perhaps you're proving that both sides are equal on this subject.
Goofball
06-02-2006, 00:34
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
Riiiggghhhht....
You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
:juggle2:
Are you implying that you (Pindar) do not interiorize convictions as part of your own identity?
Hello
I'm not sure I understand your question. Maybe this will suffice: I do not hold to an argument as rational if it cannot be demonstrated as such, nor do I personalize theoretical issues.
Riiiggghhhht....
You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
There you go! Spoken like a true dyslexic agnostic insomniac. ~;)
Soulforged
06-02-2006, 00:54
I'm not sure I understand your question. Maybe this will suffice: I do not hold to an argument as rational if it cannot be demonstrated as such, nor do I personalize theoretical issues.But what about religion then? When I say interiorize it means to take something external as yours, something that gives you form as a person, that defines you.
But what about religion then? When I say interiorize it means to take something external as yours, something that gives you form as a person, that defines you.
If I adopt a stance on some X, whether it be political, religious or otherwise and part of that adoption includes a rational component then rational standards apply. If it is not a rational issue then no such correspondence is needed or relevant, but then the force of the view may be rightly called into question. Regardless, as I previously stated: I don't personalize theoretical issues. For example, if I take Jesus as the Christ which includes the idea He is Divine and some other utterly rejects that view, I don't consider it a personal attack.
If I may wax in the mold of Henry James: perturbation about contrary views simply because of their contrariness is the work of an untutored mind and/or an indicator of a certain emotionalism run amuck.
Does that answer your question good sir?
The interest of the post is the rhetorical posture it describes.
And you just happened to pick an example that depicts people whose politics are contrary to yours as the unfortunates in this "rhetorical posture"? I believe you; millions wouldn't.
[edit]
I'm going to be AFK for several days, but in the meantime, I would appreciate hearing a coherent argument from Pindar. If your thesis is that leftists with "identity politics" are more prone to having an emotional investment than any other group on earth in their ideology, please provide some evidence. Here is a link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/) to a write-up of the brain study I mentioned earlier. Surely if Democrats were more inherently emotional, or rendered so by their beliefs, a measurable discrepancy would have showed up in the brain scans.
If you have access to tangible evidence which refutes the study, I eagerly await your reply.
Soulforged
06-02-2006, 02:58
If I adopt a stance on some X, whether it be political, religious or otherwise and part of that adoption includes a rational component then rational standards apply. If it is not a rational issue then no such correspondence is needed or relevant, but then the force of the view may be rightly called into question. Regardless, as I previously stated: I don't personalize theoretical issues. For example, if I take Jesus as the Christ which includes the idea He is Divine and some other utterly rejects that view, I don't consider it a personal attack.
Does that answer your question good sir?
My point was this. Do you argue against abortion from a religious point of view? For example. I know that several people do, in fact many jurist do, and the arguements seem to be all emotional. EDIT: At some point it seems imposible to separete yourself for a certain creed, whatever it's. In this particular case the dogma mixes up with issues that require a reality check.
ajaxfetish
06-02-2006, 04:44
Lemur made a very good point right at the beginning that the characteristics applied by this blogger to leftists (which seems quite a generalization to begin with) can just as easily be applied to the right (though that requires another blatant generalization).
I think the important things to remember are that the blogger's sentiments were opinion and not a reasoned argument-and should be treated as such-and that there is a great spectrum of personalities on both sides, neither mindless zealotry or reasonable contemplation being exclusive to one or the other.
Ajax
And you just happened to pick an example that depicts people whose politics are contrary to yours as the unfortunates in this "rhetorical posture"? I believe you; millions wouldn't.
I didn't pick an example. I did post a commentary focused on the identity politics of the Left.
I'm going to be AFK for several days, but in the meantime, I would appreciate hearing a coherent argument from Pindar. If your thesis is that leftists with "identity politics" are more prone to having an emotional investment than any other group on earth in their ideology, please provide some evidence. Here is a link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/) to a write-up of the brain study I mentioned earlier. Surely if Democrats were more inherently emotional, or rendered so by their beliefs, a measurable discrepancy would have showed up in the brain scans.
If you have access to tangible evidence which refutes the study, I eagerly await your reply.
The position put forward wasn't about emotional investment per say, but a larger rhetorical posture which can lead to an emotionalism. That posture was identified with identity politics and the personalization of issues. The topic sentence and lead sentence indicate the stance: "Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos." Do you see?
I can't comment on the study since I don't know the details. I can say that the emotional reaction of any given individual doesn't really relate to the initial post which is the rhetorical stance of the Left identified as an identity politic. Noting the Left with identity politics is not a new idea. If you follow political discourse this should not be new information. Two of the authors I reference made the same claim in this regard. If you disagree then put forward your counter.
My point was this. Do you argue against abortion from a religious point of view? For example. I know that several people do, in fact many jurist do, and the arguements seem to be all emotional. EDIT: At some point it seems imposible to separete yourself for a certain creed, whatever it's. In this particular case the dogma mixes up with issues that require a reality check.
My argument against abortion in the public sphere is jurisprudential namely: I don't believe the Supreme Court can create rights ex nihilo. Rights must be a product of the popular will i.e. the amendment process. The U.S. Supreme Court's failure to allow for the popular will to demonstrate itself is one of the reasons for the political carnage on the issue today.
Positions where the conclusion is taken as inseparable from an given identity can lead to the very issue I think is noted in the first post. In the religious arena this is easy to see: a religious fervent who disavows a child who tells them he is gay might be an example. The perceived religious viewpoint moves the fervent to reject what is taken as inimical to their belief even if that includes their own blood. I think the commentaries' authors would argue a similar rhetoric informs the general identity politics of the Left where the opposition must demonize the opposition because the opposition is a direct affront to the self.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-02-2006, 06:06
All frequencies of the political spectrum carry the potential for over-emotionalism. Lefties, Righties, even Mugwumps can get caught up in the emphasis of their beliefs.
Identification with a political cause, with a political belief, with a philosophy of goverment can become quite an important component of one's identity. The quest to know ourselves, to define ourselves, is the driving force -- and many of us spend our whole lives in pursuit of a clear sense of self (in part because it is an ever-metamorphosing target).
To remove emotionalism from politics, you would have to remove emotionalism from humanity. I do not think this likely.
A studious effort to downplay the emotive in favor of the factual and demonstrable is probably the best for which one can strive.
Papewaio
06-02-2006, 06:22
When I was living in Taiwan they had the Presidential elections. It was like a massive sports event with people running on emotions.
For myself an Aussie elections are where you vote on economic and social policy. It just isn't that exciting when it comes down to two parties that only significant difference is colour preference... red or blue.
ALP = Australian Labour Party.
Which is funny since the government is the Liberal Party... hence they are also ALP. :dizzy2:
There is a larger difference but when viewed against the backdrop of the entire worlds spectrum of political choices it seems that the two main parties are playing safe and have very similar polices.
However the industrial reform may in fact create a significant enough change to make voting out the incumbent worth the effort.
Kralizec
06-02-2006, 10:18
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
Thank you, it's clear from where you're coming with this.
Since this thread is all about spurious generalisations, I'll join in the fun.
Abortion, gay marriage and seperation of church and state are not just political issues for religious conservatives. It is an assault not just on their identity, because it attacks what they perceive as objectively right. Because their convictions are divinely inspired, either through clear revelation or imbued in their nature by their creator, any deviation from their convictions is wrong. This means that religious conservatives believe that they do not only have the authority of God on their side, but that they themselves are superior, they themselves are better then their opponents. Either because of rational reasoning, or inherent moral virtue they have chosen the right faith. Below them are all the apostates, the unbelievers, the heretics and the pagans, who either irrationally deny the truth of God, or because they are inherently immoral and are not capable of recognising that wich is truly right. This imbues the religious right with a certain arrogance, a "holier-then-thou" attitude, and a contempt for all opposition.
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
Thank you, it's clear from where you're coming with this.
Since this thread is all about spurious generalisations, I'll join in the fun.
Abortion, gay marriage and seperation of church and state are not just political issues for religious conservatives...This means that religious conservatives believe that they do not only have the authority of God on their side, but that they themselves are superior, they themselves are better then their opponents...This imbues the religious right with a certain arrogance, a "holier-then-thou" attitude, and a contempt for all opposition.
Hello,
Your statement reflects something I already posted:
"Positions where the conclusion is taken as inseparable from an given identity can lead to the very issue I think is noted in the first post. In the religious arena this is easy to see: a religious fervent who disavows a child who tells them he is gay might be an example. The perceived religious viewpoint moves the fervent to reject what is taken as inimical to their belief even if that includes their own blood. I think the commentaries' authors would argue a similar rhetoric informs the general identity politics of the Left where the opposition must demonize the opposition because the opposition is a direct affront to the self."
Given the comparison: do you agree that the identity politics of the Left leads to the conclusion of the original commentary?
Kralizec
06-02-2006, 17:13
It's a generalisation. For some leftists and their politics, yes. The part about the black republicans is dead right. As many posters have already pointed out, this occurs with right wingers also. Religious (moral) absolutists are the most obvious example, because an attack on one of their moral standpoints is automaticly perceived as an attack on their moral framework.
Proletariat
06-02-2006, 17:33
Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.
:book:
edit: link 4 teh lazee
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046508995X/sr=8-5/qid=1149265947/ref=pd_bbs_5/102-2982858-6569767?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Ironside
06-02-2006, 18:26
There you go! Spoken like a true dyslexic agnostic insomniac. ~;)
And that dyslexic agnostic insomniac only destroyed your starting post entirely. :smug:
As your starting post concludes that the left's anti-Israel stance on is based on emotional issues, not rational ones.
And as a proof of this ,you refer to Goofball who is a very pro-Israeli from a emotional base. :laugh4:
:rtwyes: Goofball, Goofball! :rtwyes:
Wow, this thread has just proven to me exactly why members of this board hold Pindar in such high esteem! How did I not see it before? Great thread!
:book:
It's a generalisation. For some leftists and their politics, yes. The part about the black republicans is dead right. As many posters have already pointed out, this occurs with right wingers also. Religious (moral) absolutists are the most obvious example, because an attack on one of their moral standpoints is automaticly perceived as an attack on their moral framework.
It is a generalization. If you see a parallel between identity politics on the Left and religious absolutists then would you agree that the rhetoric of identity politics assumes a moral hue?
Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.
:book:
edit: link 4 teh lazee
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046508995X/sr=8-5/qid=1149265947/ref=pd_bbs_5/102-2982858-6569767?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Sowell is an interesting fellow.
And that dyslexic agnostic insomniac only destroyed your starting post entirely. :smug:
As your starting post concludes that the left's anti-Israel stance on is based on emotional issues, not rational ones.
And as a proof of this ,you refer to Goofball who is a very pro-Israeli from a emotional base. :laugh4:
:rtwyes: Goofball, Goofball! :rtwyes:
I don't understand your post. I don't think you understood my reply to Goofball. If you look at Goofball's title under his name you will note: dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I referred to his title when replying to him. I then added a smiley wink. My reply was not related to Israel. It dealt with what I thought was a funny reply from Goofball.
Ironside
06-02-2006, 19:09
I don't understand your post. I don't think you understood my reply to Goofball. If you look at Goofball's title under his name you will note: dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I referred to his title when replying to him. I then added a smiley wink. My reply was not related to Israel. It dealt with what I thought was a funny reply from Goofball.
Certainly. But he still destroy the starting point of your original argument. ~;p
Sure, people often are emotionally involved and not logically involved when it comes to politics, but it's not particullary bound to any political colour.
I mean claiming that
And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.
and then not see that in many cases the same thing happens (for some people) when it comes to abortion, gun laws, big goverment etc is walking through life with blinkers.
Certainly. But he still destroy the starting point of your original argument. ~;p
I don't follow you.
Sure, people often are emotionally involved and not logically involved when it comes to politics, but it's not particullary bound to any political colour.
I have not made any exclusionary claim. The reason I put forward the commentary for replies was I thought the charge made was interesting. It interested me, because the critique of identity politics would actually place it parallel to religious sentiment as a simple example. This would explain the emotionalism and provide context.
It doesn't seem many of the replies have challenged the conclusion, but have instead been either hostile or wanted to point to other groups as well. This suggests the author may have got it right.
Byzantine Prince
06-02-2006, 20:02
Pindar, the point of the author is obvious to anyone with common sense IMO. Certainly if people's values/ideas are challenged then that offends their egos. It isn't that insightful. The trick is to distance your ego from the issue, and see it more clearly without bias, which is what philosophy has taught us. This is the point right?
I think a lot of people identify with the Left, so it offends them that you only pick on the left, and leaves them questioning your own motivations for doing so.
Ironside
06-02-2006, 21:03
I don't follow you.
Well, your first quote basically says that the criticism of Israel is hypocritical (somewhat valid, in some cases that criticism goes too far) and that it's some way of punishing US while not really punishing the US.
The second one if speculating that the left's dislike of Israel has something to do with that they are supposed to feel betrayed by Israel.
Then you got a piece about the left (and only the left) being too emotionally obsessed by politics.
With no added information, the easiest conclusion drawed is that getting emotionally obsessed by politics is a very common phenomena on the left (and only to the left) and the anti-Israeli policy is a very big prove of that. Goofball, who is pro-Israeli and very emotional about that, proves that the bolded part is wrong.
Now if you intended something different with your original post, see below.
I have not made any exclusionary claim. The reason I put forward the commentary for replies was I thought the charge made was interesting. It interested me, because the critique of identity politics would actually place it parallel to religious sentiment as a simple example. This would explain the emotionalism and provide context.
It doesn't seem many of the replies have challenged the conclusion, but have instead been either hostile or wanted to point to other groups as well. This suggests the author may have got it right.
The reason is that as BP suggested it is formulated in a poor way for a balanced discusion. I won't get any decent responeses if I posted a claim that "the average American would make a chimpanze cover thier head in shame for being related with those stupid idiots" and didn't add that the true debate I wanted was the quality of the lower American school system. Most Americans here would feel insulted and point out that this was wrong, or that this isn't a particular American issue but would exist in other places too. In this case it would probably contain quite a few insults too in there anyway. Now an American known for having issues with the school system and known to be a proud American could probably get away with this, but not a Europeian.
Or to put it simple: You can't expect posting an article consisting of a negative view on something and that the article put it only on the "other" side and get a reasonable discussion. Unless you actually add what you really want to discuss and that you're not fully agreeing with the attack that the original article contains (unless in that very rare case that the article is true, but then the debate would have a different behavior pattern).
As for the seriousity. This is the Backroom, people here debates politics way more seriously here than they would do in real life. Life and death issues here can be barely noticible in real life.
Well, your first quote basically says that the criticism of Israel is hypocritical (somewhat valid, in some cases that criticism goes too far) and that it's some way of punishing US while not really punishing the US.
The second one if speculating that the left's dislike of Israel has something to do with that they are supposed to feel betrayed by Israel.
Then you got a piece about the left (and only the left) being too emotionally obsessed by politics.
With no added information, the easiest conclusion drawed is that getting emotionally obsessed by politics is a very common phenomena on the left (and only to the left) and the anti-Israeli policy is a very big prove of that. Goofball, who is pro-Israeli and very emotional about that, proves that the bolded part is wrong.
I see. I actually read the final commentary not as a simple piece on emotional obsession, but that political conclusions can become tied to personal identity which may lead to the emotion and that this was indicated by the Left's identity politics. This is why the thread is titled as it is. It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.
As far as Goofball's ways and means regarding Israel I wouldn't know. His comment didn't mention Israel nor was it an argument nor was it emotional or angry. Rather, it was a comment on emotion in his arguments that I thought was rather funny which I think was the intent.
You can't expect posting an article consisting of a negative view on something and that the article put it only on the "other" side and get a reasonable discussion. Unless you actually add what you really want to discuss and that you're not fully agreeing with the attack that the original article contains (unless in that very rare case that the article is true, but then the debate would have a different behavior pattern).
I think one can present a whole host of theoretical issues where it doesn't require people to personalize. Earlier I gave the example of a possible religious exchange where one might utterly reject the notion Jesus was Divine. Jesus being Divine is considered a fundamental principle for orthodox Christendom. Now, if a religious fervent got emotionally out of sorts because of this rejection by another then I think its natural to ask why? The rejection of Jesus as Divine is not a personal indictment or an insult per say, but the fervent may still get emotional because their religiosity is tied up in their sense of self. If that same rubric applies to the Left's identity politic then that is telling.
As for the seriousity. This is the Backroom, people here debates politics way more seriously here than they would do in real life. Life and death issues here can be barely noticible in real life.
Quite! I'm actually surprised by the hostility, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. If the blogger's commentary was off then it could simply be dismissed. It doesn't seem really anyone has challenged his conclusion. Rather, the tact has been to argue other groups are equally inclined. I think the references to the religious right are the most telling because it is their religiosity that is the operative. This would then suggest the Left's identity politic mirrors religious fervor.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-02-2006, 23:42
Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people.
I don't see how politics is separable from identity. You can't believe "I am a liberal" without it being part of your identity. For who is "simple politics" not at all related to their identity?
Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos."
In my experience most leftists are not egotistical. Identifying yourself with an -ism that you believe is good will natural feed your ego a bit, but "central support" is a gross exaggeration.
"They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do."
"crucial structure" is another exaggeration.
"If one is smart, then one believes in progressivism.
If one believes in progressivism, then one is smart.
Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in progressivism."
I've met plenty of smart conservatives and stupid liberals, and I'm sure most leftists have as well. The blogger is essentially claiming that leftists have no powers of observation.
"And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
Not much to say here. His logic is fine, but since he based it on the faulty assumption that for leftists politics is a crucial support of themselves, it all comes tumbling down in the end.
I would say when leftists get emotional or angry when debating it is because they feel there are wrongs which must be righted, and conservatives are persistent in continuing what they see as injustice. Nothing to do with ego's or identities being threatened.
Soulforged
06-03-2006, 01:04
My argument against abortion in the public sphere is jurisprudential namely: I don't believe the Supreme Court can create rights ex nihilo. Rights must be a product of the popular will i.e. the amendment process. The U.S. Supreme Court's failure to allow for the popular will to demonstrate itself is one of the reasons for the political carnage on the issue today.Interesting, what would have been of the US today if they ratified the Pact of San José. Anyway you've proved your point well, but still the point stands that you're one of millions, and the politic identity applies to the whole spectrum.
Hurin_Rules
06-03-2006, 02:08
"Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos."
Um, and why exactly couldn't you add 'conservatism' or 'neo-conservatism' or 'moral absolutism' to this list?
You've been nitpicking others' conclusions when your entire premise is flawed. In fact, it is ridiculous.
I'm really quite surprised you find this interesting Pindar. Do you also enjoy objective, non-emotional, purely-rational conservative shows such as The O'Reilly Factor?
I don't see how politics is separable from identity. You can't believe "I am a liberal" without it being part of your identity. For who is "simple politics" not at all related to their identity?
I think a political stance may be a part of one's identity, but I don't think there is any necessity to it. In my own case my political views, like any theoretical posture I hold to, has an attendant rationale. I hold to P because of Q. If the Q should change or no longer prove warranted then the P is no longer held to. The holding to any particular P or its removal is not constitutive to my person or identity, but a reflection of the justification for the idea itself.
Interesting, what would have been of the US today if they ratified the Pact of San José. Anyway you've proved your point well, but still the point stands that you're one of millions, and the politic identity applies to the whole spectrum.
The ratification of the Pact of San Jose would have become a treaty. Treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court via Judicial Review determines the bounds of the Constitution and as such could have ruled as they did irrespective of any treaty.
I don't think identity politics is a spectrum wide phenomena. I think it may apply to specific groups.
Um, and why exactly couldn't you add 'conservatism' or 'neo-conservatism' or 'moral absolutism' to this list?
I have made no claim they couldn't. I don't know how some would apply: neo-conservatism given its straussian impulse would be hard fit I would think.
I'm really quite surprised you find this interesting Pindar.
I've always found rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups interesting. You feel differently it appears. I guess not all things can appeal to all people.
Do you also enjoy objective, non-emotional, purely-rational conservative shows such as The O'Reilly Factor?
No, I don't. If I recall, O'Reilly doesn't put himself forward as a conservative.
Soulforged
06-03-2006, 03:57
The ratification of the Pact of San Jose would have become a treaty. Treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court via Judicial Review determines the bounds of the Constitution and as such could have ruled as they did irrespective of any treaty.So even if ratified, and against international custom, the US can unbind itself from any treaty, even one of human rights as the Pact of San Jose? Totally of topic, but the Courts here were used to do the same until a famous case (Ekmekdjian vs Sofovich, 1992), even if we've a continental system, jurisprudence has a lot of strenght. The one set by that sentence told that all articles on any treaty on human rights, that's ratified, is inmediatly operative regardless of what the text says or what the tribunals could say. Any case ruling otherwise would be repealed at the Supreme Court wich treats all this issues. However treaties do not trump our Constitution either, the same Constitution includes a number of treaties on human rights since 1994, and even those cannot trump the first half of the Constitution.
Reverend Joe
06-03-2006, 04:04
https://img333.imageshack.us/img333/5103/t20we20be20friends23kx.jpg
So even if ratified, and against international custom, the US can unbind itself from any treaty, even one of human rights as the Pact of San Jose?
Yes. The same applies to the ratifying authority: the U.S. Senate can reject, void, amend or ignore any treaty it sees fit at any time. There may be international political fallout, but that is a question of prudence, not law.
Ironside
06-03-2006, 09:19
I see. I actually read the final commentary not as a simple piece on emotional obsession, but that political conclusions can become tied to personal identity which may lead to the emotion and that this was indicated by the Left's identity politics. This is why the thread is titled as it is. It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.
The problem is that the starting post is saying a finer version of that the Empire State Building sucks. And if that is because a building technique that was also used in Brooklyn Bridge, then the reaction will be simular to how this thread would look like, instead of arguing about the building technique in ESB and it's advantages and disadvantages.
As far as Goofball's ways and means regarding Israel I wouldn't know. His comment didn't mention Israel nor was it an argument nor was it emotional or angry. Rather, it was a comment on emotion in his arguments that I thought was rather funny which I think was the intent.
Goofball's stance on the Palestine/Israel issue is known from earlier threads. Yeah I know that he was witty and you responded in the same way, but to simplify:
Starting thread: The left is very emontional about politics, especially about Israel.
Goofball: I'm very emontional.
You: See, I got proof.
Me: No you didn't.
Quite! I'm actually surprised by the hostility, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. If the blogger's commentary was off then it could simply be dismissed. It doesn't seem really anyone has challenged his conclusion. Rather, the tact has been to argue other groups are equally inclined. I think the references to the religious right are the most telling because it is their religiosity that is the operative. This would then suggest the Left's identity politic mirrors religious fervor.
The thing that have stirred up all the mess is that the original starting post is an attack on the left. Not militant vegans or other extreme groups sneaking around in the outskirts of the left of politics, but the entire left. What's occuring then is that people who identify themself as the left, by thier own definition or others, will feel hit by it. Not because it's about themself, but as the statement has some truth in it when it comes to a group they identify with. Leaving the statement as it is, cannot then be left unrefuted without implying that it is true as a hole and not partly. The statement contains enough truth to make it impossible to simply dismiss it, but is so far from the truth that it cannot be left unrefuted.
For example I occationally defends the youth on some matters, not because I feel hit directly as the criticism is usually aimed at the groups known as chavs, white trash etc, etc, but as they drag the hole group known as the youth into that group if I leave it unrefuted.
And what's the left's Jesus so to speak? What argument, if correct, will have thier entire world view crashing down on them?
Kanamori
06-03-2006, 10:09
The author has it teribbly mixed up; he's attaching the wrong emotional complex to the quagmire of having their ideas challanged by the right. The only thing a lefty can do when confronted with these truths is to experience pure and unbridled amusement.
The show must go on!:skull:
Kralizec
06-03-2006, 11:29
It is a generalization. If you see a parallel between identity politics on the Left and religious absolutists then would you agree that the rhetoric of identity politics assumes a moral hue?
Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "hue" in this context.
You keep on capitalizing the Left, as if it's a monolith movement, and it's obviously written from a US conservative position. It's the old trap of trying to generalize what you perceive as your political opponents into one catagory, rallying "us" against "them". Call it inverse-identity politics. I find it amusing how some people can't seem to argue with me without putting me in the same catagory as Hillary Clinto, Hugo Chavez or Che Guevara, but when they persist it gets really annoying.
So yeah, some "leftists" (with a small "l") are emotionally impaired when it comes to rational discussions. Excuse me, I feel no need to defend them just because I fit in the same arbitrarily defined political catagory.
Hurin_Rules
06-03-2006, 15:49
I have made no claim they couldn't.
The entire premise of the thread depends on a distinction between liberals and non-liberals. And it has yet to be demonstrated. (and no, merely pointing out the flaws in your argument is not getting emotional.)
I've always found rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups interesting. You feel differently it appears. I guess not all things can appeal to all people.
No, I agree with you there, I too find rhetorical postures interesting. Especially the ones that are patently biased and yet refuse to admit they are. I wonder what THAT says about the fragility of egos?
No, I don't. If I recall, O'Reilly doesn't put himself forward as a conservative.
I'm surprised you care about people rejecting labels that have been attached to them, since you've just done the same to a far wider group of people.
In any event, as several posters have noted, the proper response to such an obviously flawed rhetorical position is amusement. I'll just be sitting back and enjoying.
Thus do the inherent flaws of a priori reasoning manifest themselves.
The problem is that the starting post is saying a finer version of that the Empire State Building sucks.
Whether the focus is the suckiness* of the Empire State Building or no, the focus remains the Empire State Building.
*A very fun word.
Goofball's stance on the Palestine/Israel issue is known from earlier threads. Yeah I know that he was witty and you responded in the same way, but to simplify:
Starting thread: The left is very emontional about politics, especially about Israel.
Goofball: I'm very emontional.
You: See, I got proof.
Me: No you didn't.
Ahh, my friend, statements must be taken as given. One cannot imbue a position that isn't stated. Goofball's statement did not mention Israel, it wasn't an argument, nor was it emotional.
I don't think your simplification works either: I didn't take Goofball's statement as any proof text.
The thing that have stirred up all the mess is that the original starting post is an attack on the left. Not militant vegans or other extreme groups sneaking around in the outskirts of the left of politics, but the entire left. What's occuring then is that people who identify themself as the left, by thier own definition or others, will feel hit by it. Not because it's about themself, but as the statement has some truth in it when it comes to a group they identify with. Leaving the statement as it is, cannot then be left unrefuted without implying that it is true as a hole and not partly. The statement contains enough truth to make it impossible to simply dismiss it, but is so far from the truth that it cannot be left unrefuted.
If the statement has truth in it then whither the need to refute? If a perceived adjustment, say like such applies to a part and not the whole were thought necessary then one could easily state such without hostility or rancor.
And what's the left's Jesus so to speak? What argument, if correct, will have thier entire world view crashing down on them?
If the parallel holds the Left's Jesus would be the leftist ideology itself (the promised utopia as it were). Thus the orthodox would be those most loyal to the fundamental teachings and the political opposition the infidels.
The author has it teribbly mixed up; he's attaching the wrong emotional complex to the quagmire of having their ideas challanged by the right. The only thing a lefty can do when confronted with these truths is to experience pure and unbridled amusement.
The show must go on!:skull:
I suggested that very alternative in a post or two above. Yet, interestingly, many of the reposes have been quite different.
Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "hue" in this context.
Hue refers to an aspect or type. Moral hue would mean a type or kind of morality.
You keep on capitalizing the Left, as if it's a monolith movement, and it's obviously written from a US conservative position. It's the old trap of trying to generalize what you perceive as your political opponents into one catagory, rallying "us" against "them". Call it inverse-identity politics. I find it amusing how some people can't seem to argue with me without putting me in the same catagory as Hillary Clinto, Hugo Chavez or Che Guevara, but when they persist it gets really annoying.
Difficulties with capitalization? OK, I can adjust easily enough: left.
So yeah, some "leftists" (with a small "l") are emotionally impaired when it comes to rational discussions. Excuse me, I feel no need to defend them just because I fit in the same arbitrarily defined political catagory.
Quite so.
The entire premise of the thread depends on a distinction between liberals and non-liberals. And it has yet to be demonstrated. (and no, merely pointing out the flaws in your argument is not getting emotional.)
This doesn't follow does it. Pointing out some X has aspect Y in no way indicates Y could not be held by some other.
No, I agree with you there, I too find rhetorical postures interesting. Especially the ones that are patently biased and yet refuse to admit they are. I wonder what THAT says about the fragility of egos?
Then I don't know why you stated you were surprised I might find this interesting.
I'm surprised you care about people rejecting labels that have been attached to them, since you've just done the same to a far wider group of people.
I don't know what this refers to. I have not claimed some fellow was part of group X who says he is not part of group X.
In any event, as several posters have noted, the proper response to such an obviously flawed rhetorical position is amusement. I'll just be sitting back and enjoying.
Thus do the inherent flaws of a priori reasoning manifest themselves.
I don't understand your reference to a priori reasoning. The commentary is not a priori reasoning. It is a posteriori.
Tribesman
06-03-2006, 23:13
It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.
Look , Pindar has explained this , the topic is the left . Any focus on any group that is not the left is irrelevant , any post that says the right is just about as bad as the left is irrelevant , please keep the discussion within Pindars parameters as he will not contemplate any thoughts that do not fall within his own narrowly defined parameters .
Thank you , and GAH
Hurin_Rules
06-04-2006, 02:27
Look , Pindar has explained this , the topic is the left . Any focus on any group that is not the left is irrelevant , any post that says the right is just about as bad as the left is irrelevant , please keep the discussion within Pindars parameters as he will not contemplate any thoughts that do not fall within his own narrowly defined parameters .
Thank you , and GAH
That sums it up quite nicely, thanks.
It's just that one usually reads Pindar's posts--which unfortunately have been all too rare lately-- with some enthusiasm, expecting that there will be some real content to them. This is just a rather banal myopia masquerading as some sort of argument, with a sprinkling of unconvincing logic chopping as the sole garnish. To meet banality with banality, we might ask where, my good Pindar, is the beef?
Maybe he was bored.
ho hum
Maybe he was bored.
ho hum
But I have been rather amused by some of the responses.
Ironside
06-04-2006, 07:59
If the statement has truth in it then whither the need to refute? If a perceived adjustment, say like such applies to a part and not the whole were thought necessary then one could easily state such without hostility or rancor.
Do you really find that it's acutally needed? There's two ways such a statements can be made looking like the gross generalisation is true. It's either saying nothing ("Oh look spot on, they're stunned by your brilliance") or saying that's not me ("Now we got them on denial").
As for the tone, aggresive posts usually gets agressive responses.
But I have been rather amused by some of the responses.
Isn't that something you do when you're bored? Amuse yourself?
Because I'm starting to feel that Pindarbot thought: "I wonder what rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups I would get if I posted a very aggressive post with considerable generalizations and defined the extent of the thread to such a narrow view that any reasonable discussion is impossible, while still leaving enough room for me to claim that I didn't."
Well it's always good training up the debating skills.
Isn't that something you do when you're bored? Amuse yourself?
I find things to occupy myself with when I am bored.
I find your post here rather amusing.
Ironside
06-05-2006, 08:21
I find things to occupy myself with when I am bored.
I find your post here rather amusing.
Well, everything to amuse my fellow Orgah! :laugh4:
That sums it up quite nicely, thanks.
It's just that one usually reads Pindar's posts--which unfortunately have been all too rare lately-- with some enthusiasm, expecting that there will be some real content to them. This is just a rather banal myopia masquerading as some sort of argument, with a sprinkling of unconvincing logic chopping as the sole garnish. To meet banality with banality, we might ask where, my good Pindar, is the beef?
Maybe he was bored.
ho hum
Alas, I have been dealing with intellectual property law and the legal bog that is China. This eats into Org. visits.
As far as banal myopia masquerades, (lovely phrasing by the way) the argument doesn't seem to have seen much by way of substantive Reposts. In fact, most of the responses seem to have recognized either explicitly or implicitly the basic thrust of the commentary. Attempts to expand a critique do not invalidate the original object of critique. I think the beef can be seen anytime one can attract the attention of the Irishman. He is one of the best illustrations of what the Left leads to, which is always entertaining.
Do you really find that it's acutally needed?
Needed? I simply provide a torch to reveal the brackish pool that serves as the spawning ground for the self-delusion that seems to foster in so much of the Left. What one does with that knowledge is up to those who would look. "Know Thyself" has been the model of the Western mind from its earliest days.
Because I'm starting to feel that Pindarbot thought: "I wonder what rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups I would get if I posted a very aggressive post with considerable generalizations and defined the extent of the thread to such a narrow view that any reasonable discussion is impossible, while still leaving enough room for me to claim that I didn't."
There is nothing narrow in looking to the rhetorical posture of the Left unless one says the mere fact of choosing an object of focus passes beyond reasonable discussion.
Tribesman
06-06-2006, 00:13
I think the beef can be seen anytime one can attract the attention of the Irishman
Pindar , your posts always attract my attention , anyone who thinks that the public was not misled over Iraq , the tonkin incident did happen as described even after the person who gave the description said it was made up rubbish , and that US forces were not ordered to shoot on civilians in Korea is always good for a bit of ridicule .
Papewaio
06-06-2006, 06:26
If memes are to spread they have to have mechanisms to do so and the ability to stay in a host.
If a suite of memes work best together by giving the host an endorphin rush and in turn makes the host happier and more likely to spread the memes then this would be a valid evolutionary strategy for a suite of memes to evolve.
For instance people are passionate about sports so lots of people learn about how games are played... the "knowledge about sports & co." suite of memes spreads. While people tend to be a tad less passionate about accounting so it is not spread through passionate mechanism but some other means.
Some memes will spread by being of direct benefit to the wellbeing of the host, others will spread by changing how the host feels about themselves and I assume there is a lot of other methods.
When it comes to politics (of which religion is a meme subset) I can see why passion is important... as these ideas aren't relating to needs in a first world country, they all to often are relating to wants, desires, passions. Also passion allows politics to bypass rational crtique of the ideas impedended within the suite. So the memic suite will in turn spread easier... why eat a bitter pill when you can coat it with sugar?
Ironside
06-06-2006, 11:24
Needed? I simply provide a torch to reveal the brackish pool that serves as the spawning ground for the self-delusion that seems to foster in so much of the Left. What one does with that knowledge is up to those who would look. "Know Thyself" has been the model of the Western mind from its earliest days.
But the problem isn't "Know Thyself", it is the presentation. It would require that everyone that feels that it doesn't apply to them needs to literaly state so. And beginning the post with a version of "That's not me, but..." is a very defensive stance and also commonly used from self-deluded people. How do you as a viewer see the difference between the self-deluded ones and the honest ones?
So to be able to have an honest debate you'll either need to not be indentified on the left (or liberal for that matter) in any way, or you'll need to start out with a very defensive position, that accidently also is very simular to the exact group that is under question. That's not a fair debate.
And that the original article is a statement doesn't exactly increase the odds for a reasonable deabate, when the borders of discussion is very narrow.
There is nothing narrow in looking to the rhetorical posture of the Left unless one says the mere fact of choosing an object of focus passes beyond reasonable discussion.
So you're now stating that the more than 50% of the left is a bunch of self-deluded people? As the "fact" (in the original post), as you eloquently put it, states just that.
Besides, it's not what you say, but how you say it.
Almost 2500 US soldiers have died in Iraq. Have they died trying to bring peace and prosperity, or because of the smokescreens and mishandling? Both things are true, but will give very different responses.
Ironside
06-06-2006, 11:45
For fun, let see now how much area we got for a debate.
To answer the original post:
That's true that in some cases people in radical groups on the left does invest way to much emotional capital into the politics, making it impossible to them to identify themself outside that political frame. That unfortunate reasoning seems to plague many different groups of people and not only on the left. Claiming that more than half the population left of this authour is suffering from that condition is absurd though, and indicates self-delution by the authour.
Now we could debate if the left is more prone to that than the right, but as to determine that we need a reference and as that reference is how common this condition is on the right, it falls outside the focus of the thread and thus cannot be argued about.
I simply provide a torch to reveal the brackish pool that serves as the spawning ground for the self-delusion that seems to foster in so much of the Left. What one does with that knowledge is up to those who would look.
So the correct response would be a form of gratitude, according to your worldview? Something along the lines of, "Thank you, Pindar, for shining a light on the ignorance and ineptitude in which people on the left wallow"?
You're a smart guy, Pin, but this certainly sounds like the single most smug thing I've read on this board in ages.
Crazed Rabbit
06-07-2006, 06:14
So the correct response would be a form of gratitude, according to your worldview? Something along the lines of, "Thank you, Pindar, for shining a light on the ignorance and ineptitude in which people on the left wallow"?
I believe a bit of monetary renumeration would also be in order. ~;p
Anyway, here's an example of what Pindar's torch might reveal:
What gun culture ?
That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension .
Observe the smug, condescending insult. The direct implication that those who disagree are either criminal or dim-wits who are compelled by crude showmanship, not any principled ideology. This comes from the base presumption that lefties' side on any issue is the morally superior side, and results in the emotionalism displayed in many cases. They cannot just disagree, they must insult and smear those are not of the same mind.
Crazed Rabbit
PS. Be 'lefties' I refer to those like the 'Kos' fellow, and many democrat party activists, not the general left leaning population here at the Org.
Tribesman
06-07-2006, 07:30
Observe the smug, condescending insult. The direct implication that those who disagree are either criminal or dim-wits who are compelled by crude showmanship, not any principled ideology.
Observe the emotional attatchment to the issue from Rabbit , who due to his fixation with his right to possess an inanimate object cannot understand the question that was asked or the reply it recieved .
BTW the question was about gun culture in the UK . So in the UK ......That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension .
But some people get really emotional and get a mental block over issues don't they .:2thumbsup:
Old Age doesn't kill pensioners, Conservatives do.
This thread makes me feel intelectually small,
That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension.
IMHO, this is oh so true.
rory_20_uk
06-07-2006, 18:45
What has gun wnership got to do with either being right of left wing? I'm fairly right, but I am against gun ownership.
Offtopic...
Generally, old people are the cause of their own deaths. For example my own grandmother:
Refused Meals on Wheels
Refused occupational therapy input in falling aids, banisters, ramps, removing pointed tables
Refused home help
Refused residential home placement
So, she lives alone and has a cleaner in once a week. She fell when we were there onto a concrete flor as she was sitting on a takk unstable stool and reaching for a folder. It took 3 to move her to her usual chair. Basically there is a real chance that if we'd not been there she'd have died as she could not move and no guests were expected for days. She describes the event as "a bit silly"... :dizzy2:
It is her right to choose a situation that will mean there is a significan liklihood one time she will be found dead at home. I may not agree with that, but it's the way things are.
~:smoking:
Tribesman
06-08-2006, 00:05
What has gun wnership got to do with either being right of left wing?
Because it is an issue that some people get very emotional about .
I'm fairly right, but I am against gun ownership.
Why are you against gun ownership ?
Crazed Rabbit
06-08-2006, 00:47
Here's an article from the Associated Press, basically accusing anyone for secure immigration of being a racist:
Immigration debate stirs racial tensions
By ERIN TEXEIRA
AP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- As the fight over immigration reform drags on, an ominous undercurrent to the debate - racism - is becoming more pronounced. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION_RACISM?SITE=CTNHR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
And
Sociologist Gonzalo Santos of California State University at Bakersfield said immigration is just the latest example of social policy issues taking on racial overtones in America.
"People talk about immigration as if race doesn't matter, saying 'No, I don't have anything against immigrants or Mexicans, it's just the illegal part of it I don't like.' But those are code words," he said. "We experience race in this country through issues like welfare policy, anti-poverty programs and now immigration."
I'd post something for tribesy, but he's really his own refutation. :laugh4: :2thumbsup:
Crazed Rabbit
I don't quite see what there is to be so smug about, CR. So you can cite some obscure academics who say stupid things on the left -- as Rumsfeld would say, henny-penny, the sky is falling. Never mind that the people you're quoting have no real power, and are probably as marginalized as most extremists ought to be.
Never mind who's really holding political power in this country, or what decisions they are making, or what consequences we're facing. No, let's focus our energies on the most marginal, dogmatic people we can find.
I swear, this whole thread has about as much relevance to what's going on in our nation as the President's push for a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. So let me revise my earlier statements: This thread is not only one-sided, smug and intellectually lazy, it's also a blatant piece of self-congratulation and distraction for our more conservative ograhs. Can't you lads soap each others' beards in your private club, where the rest of us don't have to watch?
Crazed Rabbit
06-08-2006, 02:50
It isn't just obscure academics, it is the mainstream media that is writing about this as though it were true. Were it just a few nuts, that'd be a different thing. Each side has their own kooks.
But this is an associated press article that agrees with what those nuts are saying, presenting it as though it were fact.
Crazed Rabbit
Sasaki Kojiro
06-08-2006, 04:23
It isn't just obscure academics, it is the mainstream media that is writing about this as though it were true. Were it just a few nuts, that'd be a different thing. Each side has their own kooks.
But this is an associated press article that agrees with what those nuts are saying, presenting it as though it were fact.
Crazed Rabbit
Actually it says:
"an ominous undercurrent to the debate - racism - is becoming more pronounced."
And then describes that part of the debate. The writer quotes people to show their point of view, which is the job of the media.
I don't even see why you posted the article. How does it show that the majority of leftists get angry because people who disagree with them are a threat to their egos?
Kanamori
06-08-2006, 05:13
I don't understand why the press should be devoid of political beliefs anyway. As long as thing's are represented in truth, I do not see how it can make a difference, except to those who are easily tricked. I would also think that a good press would show, or at least provide a forum for, the spectrum and not just cherrypicked, good ol conservative, pro status quo, and minimal change positions.:book:
Anyway, as a serious response:
I've not seen anything that establishes some causal link showing that lefties, as differentiated from liberals, are necessarily only emotional in their responses. Pointing to examples of lefties who use only emotion, even if everyone is an example for it, does not show some causal link between the two. Heck, even someone who is only emotional can come to a correct conclusion, if only by chance. So, I see no point in this whole thing besides that having an identity going into a discussion is bad, which I would agree with. If you choose your positions because of how you identify yourself, you've no reason to come to the conclusions that you come to. And so, you would have no support justifying your conclusions and no thing to warrant that belief.
screwtype
06-08-2006, 14:40
Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.
No, but ya gotta love the title! :laugh4:
screwtype
06-08-2006, 15:45
Goofball's statement did not mention Israel, it wasn't an argument, nor was it emotional.
Actually, Goofball's statement was an argument. He was responding to this statement of yours:
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
To which he replied:
Riiiggghhhht....
You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
Goofball's comment was clearly an ironical reference to the statement of the late NRA leader, Charlton Heston, when he said:
You can take my gun from me when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.
The point being that Heston's attachment to his big metal penis extension was about as transparently emotional as it gets.
But it seems that Goofball's point went over your head Pindar. Hmmm...maybe there's something to that theory about progressives being smarter after all... ~D
screwtype
06-08-2006, 16:51
In my own case my political views, like any theoretical posture I hold to, has an attendant rationale. I hold to P because of Q. If the Q should change or no longer prove warranted then the P is no longer held to. The holding to any particular P or its removal is not constitutive to my person or identity, but a reflection of the justification for the idea itself.
Which is as good a cue as any for what I wanted to say in regards to this debate.
The Right loves to castigate the Left for being "emotional" (read irrational, illogical, girlish, weak etc). Conservatives of course tend to champion traditional gender roles, in which the male is lionized as (ahem) the "decider". Thus by feminizing the Left, conservatives reinforce their own notions of themselves as strong, masculine, responsible, rational and right - ie, the faction naturally born to lead.
One can see right away that framing the debate in these terms is itself inherently irrational, as it is based on instinctive feelings and projection (ie, of the weak, feminine, rejected part of the self onto the other).
But there's a more important issue at stake. In my experience, people who pride themselves on their ability to think logically and unemotionally about a subject are those in fact most prone to be totally dominated in their decision making by their emotions. The reason is because most such people are not actually in control of their emotions so much as they are in denial of them.
To put it another way, before you can genuinely look at an issue with a degree of objectivity, you have to first be aware of your own emotions regarding the matter. If you aren't fully aware of, or are reluctant to examine, your own emotional responses to an issue, then you are leaving the door wide open for your unexamined and thus unconscious emotions to completely dominate your thought processes.
An extreme example of this is Nazism. The Nazis who engineered the holocaust imagined themselves to be dealing with the world in cold, hard, logical terms, shorn of foolish feminine emotions. Out of that worldview sprang the gas chambers. For the Nazis, it was the logical, unemotional response to the need for racial purity. The only problem being that the initial premise was barking mad in the first place - and the "solution" equally bestial.
The problem for most of these "rational, unemotional" conservatives, as they like to see themselves, is that they are not actually unemotional, rather they are either not in touch with or in denial of their emotions - and thus unable to think rationally at all.
As you yourself said Pindar, the unoffical Western motto for millenia has been the Greek phrase know thyself. The problem for conservatives being that they don't want to know themselves - they shrink from the world of emotions like vampires from sunlight. And because of that, their much vaunted "rationality" is an illusion.
Hence the abominable mess in Iraq.
I think the beef can be seen anytime one can attract the attention of the Irishman
Pindar , your posts always attract my attention , anyone who thinks that the public was not misled over Iraq , the tonkin incident did happen as described even after the person who gave the description said it was made up rubbish , and that US forces were not ordered to shoot on civilians in Korea is always good for a bit of ridicule .
...?
But the problem isn't "Know Thyself", it is the presentation. It would require that everyone that feels that it doesn't apply to them needs to literaly state so. And beginning the post with a version of "That's not me, but..." is a very defensive stance and also commonly used from self-deluded people. How do you as a viewer see the difference between the self-deluded ones and the honest ones?
The thrust of the commentary is general, not particular. An individual can or should feel at ease to discuss the topic without a sense of personal recrimination or indictment.
And that the original article is a statement doesn't exactly increase the odds for a reasonable debate, when the borders of discussion is very narrow.
Debate is not required: debate presupposes opposing views. Discussion does not require an opposing stance. The proposition is on the Left and identity politics and what that may mean.
So you're now stating that the more than 50% of the left is a bunch of self-deluded people? As the "fact" (in the original post), as you eloquently put it, states just that.
There is no reference to percentages in the initial commentary.
Besides, it's not what you say, but how you say it.
Almost 2500 US soldiers have died in Iraq. Have they died trying to bring peace and prosperity, or because of the smokescreens and mishandling? Both things are true, but will give very different responses.
How one says a thing concerns rhetoric. What one says can be seen in terms of truth value. To be concerned with the rhetoric over and above the content (the possible truth claims) is to fail to understand the thrust of the piece.
To answer the original post:
That's true that in some cases people in radical groups on the left does invest way to much emotional capital into the politics, making it impossible to them to identify themself outside that political frame.
If one recognizes the veracity of the claim for part of a group or larger whole, then the next question might be what is it that leads to that distinction being possible? Or, in other words: why does such effect some and not others?
Another question may be what are the political implications?
I simply provide a torch to reveal the brackish pool that serves as the spawning ground for the self-delusion that seems to foster in so much of the Left. What one does with that knowledge is up to those who would look.
So the correct response would be a form of gratitude, according to your worldview? Something along the lines of, "Thank you, Pindar, for shining a light on the ignorance and ineptitude in which people on the left wallow"?
You're a smart guy, Pin, but this certainly sounds like the single most smug thing I've read on this board in ages.
So you don't care for rhetorical flourish? OK, fair enough.
This thread makes me feel intelectually small,
No worries, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing. ~:)
Reenk Roink
06-08-2006, 23:37
So the correct response would be a form of gratitude, according to your worldview? Something along the lines of, "Thank you, Pindar, for shining a light on the ignorance and ineptitude in which people on the left wallow"?
You're a smart guy, Pin, but this certainly sounds like the single most smug thing I've read on this board in ages.
Actually, this is more or less the same type of Pindar rhetoric spewed in the "Gah is for the retarded" discussion...
I don't understand why the press should be devoid of political beliefs anyway.
I agree. However, I would add one should be up front about one's political beliefs: full disclosure is a good thing.
Anyway, as a serious response:
I've not seen anything that establishes some causal link showing that lefties, as differentiated from liberals, are necessarily only emotional in their responses.
The commentary makes a bald claim. Most responses seem to agree at least partially with that claim.
Heck, even someone who is only emotional can come to a correct conclusion, if only by chance.
The idea a broken clock is right at least sometimes doesn't lend confidence in setting agendas or political leadership.
Actually, Goofball's statement was an argument. He was responding to this statement of yours:
This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
To which he replied:
Riiiggghhhht....
You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
Hello,
This is incorrect. An argument involves premises and a conclusion. The above is a statement.
Goofball's comment was clearly an ironical reference to the statement of the late NRA leader, Charlton Heston, when he said:
You can take my gun from me when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.
The point being that Heston's attachment to his big metal penis extension was about as transparently emotional as it gets.
But it seems that Goofball's point went over your head Pindar. Hmmm...maybe there's something to that theory about progressives being smarter after all... ~D
Prying one's gun from their cold dead hands predates Heston's use of it as head of the NRA. I have seen it on tee shirts and bumper stickers for as long as I can remember.
Actually, this is more or less the same type of Pindar rhetoric spewed in the "Gah is for the retarded" discussion...
Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.
Note: your personal hostilities or devotion to nonsense are separate from the Thread. Please confine yourself to the subject at hand which is the commentary on the Left and identity politics.
Tribesman
06-09-2006, 00:36
gah
gah
You illustrate the above point well. Please confine yourself to the topic.
Soulforged
06-09-2006, 00:44
Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.Excuse me, but I couldn't resist this one. That Gah is an expression that very well could be spoken by a person suffering from mental retardation doesn't exclude the fact that we use that kind of expressions very often to express a variaty of mental states. In the case of Gah, it's obviously not an statement or arguement, not even a response whatsoever, perhaps it's only spam as it has not point. But saying "Gah is for the retarded" seems to imply that only retarded people can use this word and not be minimized. I can say for example: huh? oops... ouch... aahh... and there's no need to minimize me because I use them.
By the way I can save this by saying that the final part of that paragraph seems just like an emotional outburst Pindar.
And: GAH? :shrug:
Tribesman
06-09-2006, 00:46
sOrrey mR; pinDar sir , we retrards just cayn't do dem topix wiV big words inum .
Reenk Roink
06-09-2006, 00:59
Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.
Note: your personal hostilities or devotion to nonsense are separate from the Thread. Please confine yourself to the subject at hand which is the commentary on the Left and identity politics.
Same old Pindar, a bit more riled up though... :laugh4:
I've finished high school by the way, yep, a "devoted retard!". :2thumbsup:
Nice to see that I must stop with the personal attacks though. You on the other hand may continue; I know that you have something better than "this should become more clear to you once you've finished High School" or "retarded". :laugh4:
So sorry I don't agree with your "obvious truth". Although many others don't either... Maybe they're all devoted retards as well! :2thumbsup: Especially the "Irishman"... :laugh4:
Now to get back on topic, as you have finished berating me. :laugh4:
I was replying to Lemur's statement, in which much "truth" was evident to me. I saw the same rehashed rhetoric coming from a certain member, who carries himself with a high-falootin* air...
*oops, 'high falootin' is probably not a word in the "good guys" dictionary. Well, here is the definition:
groundless assumption of a higher status or affectation than actually contained.
Of course, rather than a vehement attack against 'Gah' (although he has obviously failed to understand, or whose prejudice refuses to allow him to understand the purpose of 'Gah' correctly), it is some tirade against the left (although the fault he speaks of is present in the right as well, yet he remains willingly ignorant of this).
Papewaio
06-09-2006, 01:59
Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.
Thanks for the personal attacks Pindar. Looks like emotional arguments are not limited to the left nor those whose formal education should have given them the skill set to argue without hitting below the belt.
A living language has new words and meanings introduced all the time.
A quick scan of online comics and indeed Games Workshop will find that Gah has spread into the world of Geeks.
At the Org it has several meanings,
To make headsoup of ones enemies.
To eat the headsoup of ones enemies.
To not agree with a statement.
The sound one would make as a reflex vomiting sound to something disgusting.
Retarded is someone who cannot learn and adapt to the environment as their thinking has ossified.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-09-2006, 04:47
Pindar is intelligent because he does not use "gah"; someone who uses "gah", and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as intellectual as he might be, represents a threat to his ego. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of his self-worth is undermined if he discovers that there may be people who can pass as intelligent and yet use "gah".
If one is intelligent, then one does not use "gah".
If one uses "gah", then one is not intelligent.
Those are the two assumptions that prop up his sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of intelligent people who use "gah". And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in acedemia, they react intemperately to rejections of it.
Excuse me, but I couldn't resist this one. That Gah is an expression that very well could be spoken by a person suffering from mental retardation doesn't exclude the fact that we use that kind of expressions very often to express a variaty of mental states. In the case of Gah, it's obviously not an statement or arguement, not even a response whatsoever...
See my post to Papewaio that follows and then return focus to the thread topic.
Thanks for the personal attacks Pindar. Looks like emotional arguments are not limited to the left nor those whose formal education should have given them the skill set to argue without hitting below the belt.
My comments are not personal attacks. They are directed at the use of gah. The only personal comment was to Roink because I thought he was in High School.
A living language has new words and meanings introduced all the time.
Languages do change, but that does not change the correctness of my comment. Gah is not a word. If you feel some loyalty to its use consider: would you use it in an academic setting, a business setting, any setting where you were putting forward a serious idea? The answer is clear. Now, you may feel that when posting here such normality need not apply. This indicates you either feel dumbing down one's communication is acceptable or you do not feel your potential interlocutors are worthy of standard discourse. I think either sentiment is unacceptable. There may be some who lacking the ability to articulate an idea have no option, such through example can be shown a better way. For those who have options and yet embrace the inane there is no excuse.
Pindar is intelligent because he does not use "gah"; someone who uses "gah", and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as intellectual as he might be, represents a threat to his ego. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of his self-worth is undermined if he discovers that there may be people who can pass as intelligent and yet use "gah".
If one is intelligent, then one does not use "gah".
If one uses "gah", then one is not intelligent.
Those are the two assumptions that prop up his sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of intelligent people who use "gah". And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in acedemia, they react intemperately to rejections of it.
Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.
Tribesman
06-09-2006, 07:59
I was replying to Lemur's statement, in which much "truth" was evident to me. I saw the same rehashed rhetoric coming from a certain member, who carries himself with a high-falootin* air...
Reenk , would that be an ordinary high falootin air or a rootin tootin high falootin air ?
Kanamori
06-09-2006, 08:59
The commentary makes a bald claim. Most responses seem to agree at least partially with that claim.
Any one person tends toward irriation when people try to paint a broad brush over them. As I said, that many may, assumably, respond only in emotion and may be identified as lefties does not mean that leftism itself causes emotional responses. If you've no reason to your belief, then you've no thing to warrant that belief.
Ironside
06-09-2006, 10:16
The thrust of the commentary is general, not particular. An individual can or should feel at ease to discuss the topic without a sense of personal recrimination or indictment.
When the initial post contains a finer version of "Most Mormons are crooks"? Or even better, most Mormons is wackos? (define wacko)
Debate is not required: debate presupposes opposing views. Discussion does not require an opposing stance. The proposition is on the Left and identity politics and what that may mean.
Note to self. Make a clear distinction between discussion and debate in the future.
There is no reference to percentages in the initial commentary.
Unless I'm mistaken, most means more than half.
Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos
How one says a thing concerns rhetoric. What one says can be seen in terms of truth value. To be concerned with the rhetoric over and above the content (the possible truth claims) is to fail to understand the thrust of the piece.
That's simple, it's mostly false, but contains minor grains of truth, while not giving a total picture. But the retorical package in where this "fact" was delivered in is such a way were rational discussions aren't encuraged, more of the opposite. The emotional extraction needed to only have a purely intellectual and logical discussion of the initial post has then reached levels that not even Pindar can achive, as the later Gah debate shows us.
If one recognizes the veracity of the claim for part of a group or larger whole, then the next question might be what is it that leads to that distinction being possible? Or, in other words: why does such effect some and not others?
Another question may be what are the political implications?
Why? Because people can be fanatically obsessed with almost everything, that's more a psycological issue.
The political implications is already here and has been here for as far as politics have existed, so the answer is none. They're almost always ignored politically.
This thread makes me feel intelectually small,
No worries, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing. ~:)
This is correct though ~;p . It simply feels wrong arguing with Pindar and using simple language.
Languages do change, but that does not change the correctness of my comment. Gah is not a word. If you feel some loyalty to its use consider: would you use it in an academic setting, a business setting, any setting where you were putting forward a serious idea? The answer is clear. Now, you may feel that when posting here such normality need not apply. This indicates you either feel dumbing down one's communication is acceptable or you do not feel your potential interlocutors are worthy of standard discourse. I think either sentiment is unacceptable. There may be some who lacking the ability to articulate an idea have no option, such through example can be shown a better way. For those who have options and yet embrace the inane there is no excuse.
First, as Gah is normally used as refuting, I would obviously not using it when putting forward a serious idea. Second, if I know that my audience know the meaning of Gah, and something can be summarized as Gah, then it's possible that I would summarize something as Gah. But I admit that I like dashing, short summarizations.
Besides, you adapt your language to the audience, or do you normally speak like this Pindar?
And having a word that is a simplification and summarization isn't necessary dumbing things down, don't you agree?
Pindar, long answer: After aquiring the information that you've presented here I found that no argument is strong enough to change my original oppinion and is thus required to answer negative to your question.
Pindar, short answer: No.
So the conclusion is that the use of yes and no is for the retarded, as they indicates you either feel dumbing down one's communication is acceptable or you do not feel your potential interlocutors are worthy of standard discourse. I think either sentiment is unacceptable. There may be some who lacking the ability to articulate an idea have no option, such through example can be shown a better way. For those who have options and yet embrace the inane there is no excuse.
Gah is not a word. If you feel some loyalty to its use consider: would you use it in an academic setting, a business setting, any setting where you were putting forward a serious idea?
Academic settings are their own refutation, to appropriate one of your pithier sayings. Business settings, on the other hand, vary wildy. I can think of several people with whom I do business who would appreciate the joy of Gah. In fact, now that you mention it, I'm going to have to explain Gah to some people today. Spread the word, as it were.
"When posting here such normality need not apply"? Well, that's a whole bucket of wrong-headed assumptions. Why should casual discourse be viewed as abnormal? What compels you to believe that "normal" only encompasses formal settings? As for the "serious idea" portion, do you believe that comedies, jokes and informal communication cannot put forward "serious ideas"? Please explain. Last I checked, humor was one of the best ways to get a difficult or unpleasant idea across.
The conclusion you build from this foundation of sand and muck is even more amusing: "This indicates you either feel dumbing down one's communication is acceptable or you do not feel your potential interlocutors are worthy of standard discourse." So casual discourse (and there's no other way to describe the backroom of a BBS devoted to a video game series) is inherently dumbed down? Fascinating, Captain. And the use of commonly understood exclamations is by definition talking down to the unworthy? What a unique perspective. No bearing on reality, mind you, but unique.
Once again, your position on Gah seems needlessly combative, and your tone is as smug as the day is long.
There are many kinds of lawyers. Some of my best friends, etc. Based on the way you post here, I would be shocked, bowled over, flabbergasted and flummoxed if you were a trial lawyer. My best guess: Contract lawyer.
Gah is not a word.
Check the General Explanations at the beginning of the Oxford English Dictionary:
The Vocabulary of a widely diffused and highly cultivated living language is not a fixed quantity circumscribed by definite limits ... there is absolutely no defining line in any direction: the circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference.
Reenk Roink
06-09-2006, 15:03
My comments are not personal attacks. They are directed at the use of gah. The only personal comment was to Roink because I thought he was in High School.
Aw, you called me 'Roink'. The last (and only other) person to do to that was AdrianII in a heated discussion on a topic which I fail to recall. Needless to say, it was done in contempt, and I did not take well to it. Thankfully, he now addresses me by 'Reenk Roink'.
I do not being called 'Roink' (though 'Reenk' will do in a pinch), I give the courtesy of calling other's by their full pseudonym, and thus expect a mutual courtesy. I do not call you 'dar'.
Sadly, since I am speaking to one who has indirectly labeled me retarded, belittled my education (or his assumption of it), took the liberty to take points of my person (how did that fare?), smugly believed that he treated me like a cartoon, and all the while accused me of personal slights on him, I fear that my appeal will carry no weight to his ears.
Reenk , would that be an ordinary high falootin air or a rootin tootin high falootin air ?
:laugh4:
My 'Irishman' friend, your wit is as sharp as ever to this American... :2thumbsup:
Reenk Roink
06-09-2006, 15:07
Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.
Ah yes, so that makes them and this fellow 'Roink'...
Your dishonest selectivity is at the focal point of this discussion Pindar...
Geoffrey S
06-09-2006, 15:27
Entertaining topic, seemingly about nothing much at all.
However, I'll admit that a larger portion of leftish people I know seems to consider themselves intellectually superior to those that don't share their view than those on the right. In Europe, or at the least in the Netherlands, the majority of the well-educated people is on the left, possibly leading to the assumption that left automatically equates with intellectuals and vice versa; this attitude can alienate, and in fact did here in Holland.
I don't quite buy this stuff about liberals being more emotional, though. Politics and religion are used to identify oneself, whichever view one may hold. They tend to control how one thinks and reacts, and form a fundamental part of someone. Naturally any perceived attack on views someone holds as true would shake someone's self-confidence, since such attacks make us doubt if what we're doing is correct. This works either way on the political spectrum.
Possibly a reason for this perceived emotionalism on the left is due to the nature of right and left: right tends to base itself in how things are, left tends to base itself on how it thinks things should be. That makes leftwing views less solid and hence more fragile.
Right tends to base itself in how things are, left tends to base itself on how it thinks things should be.
That equation has been utterly wrecked in the last six years here in the U.S. The ruling Right no longer feels that it needs to be part of the reality-based community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community).
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Kralizec
06-09-2006, 15:53
Entertaining topic, seemingly about nothing much at all.
However, I'll admit that a larger portion of leftish people I know seems to consider themselves intellectually superior to those that don't share their view than those on the right. In Europe, or at the least in the Netherlands, the majority of the well-educated people is on the left, possibly leading to the assumption that left automatically equates with intellectuals and vice versa; this attitude can alienate, and in fact did here in Holland.
I don't quite buy this stuff about liberals being more emotional, though. Politics and religion are used to identify oneself, whichever view one may hold. They tend to control how one thinks and reacts, and form a fundamental part of someone. Naturally any perceived attack on views someone holds as true would shake someone's self-confidence, since such attacks make us doubt if what we're doing is correct. This works either way on the political spectrum.
Possibly a reason for this perceived emotionalism on the left is due to the nature of right and left: right tends to base itself in how things are, left tends to base itself on how it thinks things should be. That makes leftwing views less solid and hence more fragile.
Possibly the most sensible post in this whole thread.
:balloon2:
Geoffrey S
06-09-2006, 16:08
Edit: double post.
Geoffrey S
06-09-2006, 16:08
That equation has been utterly wrecked in the last six years here in the U.S. The ruling Right no longer feels that it needs to be part of the reality-based community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community).
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
And it will cost them, as it usually does when those in charge lose their basis in reality lose touch with the general public.
Hurin_Rules
06-09-2006, 16:39
Please confine yourself to the subject at hand which is the commentary on the Left and identity politics.
Ah, the same old games; I've missed them, I truly have. This one is almost a Pindar trademark. But I think people are starting to wise up to the way you try to shut down your opponents by limiting the debate (oops, am I only allowed to use the word 'discussion'? Please advise) to your own terms. I don't think you'll be able to do this quite so easily in the future, my friend.
Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.
I believe he was pointing out that you had just engaged in one, and gently advising you to refrain from doing so in the future.
Perhaps you missed the subtlety; you were getting a bit emotional.
Banquo's Ghost
06-09-2006, 17:32
Perhaps you missed the subtlety; you were getting a bit emotional.
A hit sir, a most palpable hit. :2thumbsup:
Sasaki Kojiro
06-09-2006, 18:26
Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.
I was quoting a liberal blog; I thought you might find the rhetorical posture interesting.
Kralizec
06-09-2006, 18:28
I was quoting a liberal blog; I thought you might find the rhetorical posture interesting.
:laugh4:
Tribesman
06-09-2006, 18:57
Hag
oh,bugger me sideways with a yardbrush , I do be so retardent.
I canut evun speil Gah propereraly
Though to be honest we are all human , and human kind is a collection of idiots and the biggest idiots are those that think that they are not .
A prime example would be the chairman of the twin town commitee from Harrow , Roderick Soul , his discourses on the twinning of his home town with Ghent can be found at the site Harrow /Ghent . R .Soul
Any one person tends toward irriation when people try to paint a broad brush over them. As I said, that many may, assumably, respond only in emotion and may be identified as lefties does not mean that leftism itself causes emotional responses. If you've no reason to your belief, then you've no thing to warrant that belief.
I don't think the stance is Leftism itself is causative, but that the identity politics of Leftism lends itself to emotionalism.
When the initial post contains a finer version of "Most Mormons are crooks"? Or even better, most Mormons is wackos? (define wacko)
Exactly! Once could then investigate whether that were the case.
Unless I'm mistaken, most means more than half. "Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos" All the commentary was not posted, only a paragraph. Do you note "these people" The identifier of the pronoun isn't noted as "isms" are not people. The actual thrust of the commentary was Left wing blogs.
That's simple, it's mostly false, but contains minor grains of truth, while not giving a total picture. But the rhetorical package in where this "fact" was delivered in is such a way were rational discussions aren't encuraged, more of the opposite. The emotional extraction needed to only have a purely intellectual and logical discussion of the initial post has then reached levels that not even Pindar can achive, as the later Gah debate shows us.
I think the misdirection is telling.
Why? Because people can be fanatically obsessed with almost everything, that's more a psycological issue.
The political implications is already here and has been here for as far as politics have existed, so the answer is none. They're almost always ignored politically.
I don't think this is correct. The rhetorical tone of the Left in the U.S. has changed. I think the impetus may be from the Reagan Revolution followed by the end of the Cold War.
First, as Gah is normally used as refuting, I would obviously not using it when putting forward a serious idea.
So, you've succumb I see. You want to argue refutation cannot be serious?
Second, if I know that my audience know the meaning of Gah, and something can be summarized as Gah, then it's possible that I would summarize something as Gah.
Really? That's amazing you have very different standards than I. If I had a student who sued it as a response to a position he wouldn't fare so well.
And having a word that is a simplification and summarization isn't necessary dumbing things down, don't you agree?
Gah isn't a word.
Pindar, long answer:After aquiring the information that you've presented here I found that no argument is strong enough to change my original oppinion and is thus required to answer negative to your question.
Pindar, short answer: No.
I don't think much discussion has really occurred. Rather there have been replies that recognized a tacit admission but then pointed to other groups, hostility and off topic posts.
So the conclusion is that the use of yes and no is for the retarded...
Yes and no are words. The mimicry fails.
Academic settings are their own refutation, to appropriate one of your pithier sayings. Business settings, on the other hand, vary wildy. I can think of several people with whom I do business who would appreciate the joy of Gah...
I can't take this post seriously. Are you as stalwart in defense of ebonics and pig-Latin as you are for what one described as the sound of reflex vomiting?
Check the General Explanations at the beginning of the Oxford English Dictionary:
The Vocabulary of a widely diffused and highly cultivated living language is not a fixed quantity circumscribed by definite limits ... there is absolutely no defining line in any direction: the circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference.
Does this mean you are arguing gah is a word?
Aw, you called me 'Roink'. The last (and only other) person to do to that was AdrianII in a heated discussion on a topic which I fail to recall. Needless to say, it was done in contempt, and I did not take well to it. Thankfully, he now addresses me by 'Reenk Roink'.
I do not being called 'Roink' (though 'Reenk' will do in a pinch), I give the courtesy of calling other's by their full pseudonym, and thus expect a mutual courtesy. I do not call you 'dar'.
So, Reenk is OK, but Roink is an offense? Why would anyone know that? As you wish.
Entertaining topic, seemingly about nothing much at all.
So it has become.
However, I'll admit that a larger portion of leftish people I know seems to consider themselves intellectually superior to those that don't share their view than those on the right. In Europe, or at the least in the Netherlands, the majority of the well-educated people is on the left, possibly leading to the assumption that left automatically equates with intellectuals and vice versa; this attitude can alienate, and in fact did here in Holland.
Do you think the Left in Holland is notably different that in the U.S.?
I can't take this post seriously.
That, dear sir, is entirely your problem, and none of mine. I made cogent points; if you refuse to respond to them, that's your business.
Does this mean you are arguing gah is a word?
Absolutely. If you don't like the inclusiveness and messiness of the English language, take your grief to the Oxford English Dictionary. Sounds to me as though you'd much rather live under the French system of 40 Immortals (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/2005/pr-girard-120705.html).
I believe the correct categorization for gah would be interjection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interjection). I look forward to seeing it in the 2010 O.E.D.
Ah, the same old games; I've missed them, I truly have. This one is almost a Pindar trademark. But I think people are starting to wise up to the way you try to shut down your opponents by limiting the debate (oops, am I only allowed to use the word 'discussion'? Please advise) to your own terms. I don't think you'll be able to do this quite so easily in the future, my friend.
So asking one to focus on the actual topic is a ruse?
I believe he was pointing out that you had just engaged in one, and gently advising you to refrain from doing so in the future.
Perhaps you missed the subtlety; you were getting a bit emotional.
That would of course have been a failure to understand then as the original was not personal whereas his was directly focused on an individual.
Tribesman
06-09-2006, 21:01
Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos" All the commentary was not posted, only a paragraph. Do you note "these people" The identifier of the pronoun isn't noted as "isms" are not people. The actual thrust of the commentary was Left wing blogs.
Ah ......I get it now left wing bloggers are emotional egotists of the Roderick Soul persuation , whereas right wing bloggers are emotional egotists of the Harrow/Ghent persuation .
See the difference is so clear , it all depends on your own Harrow/Ghent R.Soul perspective.:no: AGH
Well done Pindar , your beacon lights up these brackish waters like a damp squib .
Kralizec
06-09-2006, 21:09
Do you think the Left in Holland is notably different that in the U.S.?
I'm not the poster you refer to, but I think so. The most obvious difference is that the left (or the right, for that matter) is seperated into different parties, so each can mantain a clear course (whereas in the US democrat party, issues like gay marriage and wealth distribution can still drive the party to the verge of schism)
Before and during Fortuyns tenure as a politician (cut short by his murder), the PvdA (Labour, the largest leftist party here) was criticized as being aristocratic, ruling from the assumption that they were entitled to power. And that during a cabinet period where they were part of, they were responsible for not dealing with slumbering issues like failed immigration, particulary of muslims. All things considered, I'd say that the pre-2003 PvdA had a lot in common with the Democrats.
Kanamori
06-09-2006, 21:11
I don't think the stance is Leftism itself is causative, but that the identity politics of Leftism lends itself to emotionalism.
Having any opinion lends itself to emotionalism. If Leftism is not the cause, then the fault is not with Leftism. Also, there has been no evidence that shows some correlation between leftism and emotionalism, and your conclusion is based on you having selective attention with some of those who use only emotion. Another point comes, if someone fiercely believes in their ideals, that is not to say that those ideals are not rationally supported. The line of reasoning in the article seems so broken as to not have any point at all. Leftism does not cause emotionalism and emotion does not necessarily interfere with logic. Even the thing trying to give his point significance, that lefties are emotive necessarily, is missing a real link to some necessary harm.
Kanamori
06-09-2006, 21:23
Also, gah is vague. I very much dislike vague things. Gah does carry meaning, but what exactly the meaning is seems pretty open to interpretation. As far as I can tell, the only thing that the uses of gah have in common is a feeling of annoyance. It may be useful in caveman-speak.:book:
Me want thing there. The sentence carries meaning, but it is far from sophisticated or precise.
The sentence carries meaning, but it is far from sophisticated or precise.
I must have missed the memo about all language needing to be sophisticated and precise. I love the English language in an intemperate way. Part of why I love it so much is that it is inclusive, sprawling, flexible and massive. There are cute words, ugly words, technical words, colloquial words, slang words, proper words, divine words, rude words ... it just goes on and on. I love them all.
Kanamori
06-09-2006, 21:51
That's fine. I was never saying it could not be a word or is not. In fact, what I have said supports that it is a word. It does carry meaning. However, words that are inprecise have nvery little place in a serious discussion or in thought. Vagueness in meaning tends to help fuzzy thinking; the vague meaning is often attributed to places where it would not belong if meaning was very firmly established. Essentially, it helps to establish what you are very strongly against, iirc, and that is unclear thinking that simply results in the brain's positive association with the claim -- it helps to create the image of logic and reason where there really is none.
Tribesman
06-09-2006, 22:18
However, words that are inprecise have nvery little place in a serious discussion or in thought. Vagueness in meaning tends to help fuzzy thinking; the vague meaning is often attributed to places where it would not belong if meaning was very firmly established.
What , you mean words like leftism , liberalism , progressivism , etc-ism ?~;)
Look , this is a serious discusion , the vagueness or fuzzyness of those words and their different interpretations throughout the world in no way become meaningless drivel or abstract concepts open to individualistic interpretation .
Hurin_Rules
06-09-2006, 23:01
That would of course have been a failure to understand then as the original was not personal whereas his was directly focused on an individual.
Ah, I see. Your statement to Reenk Roink that, quote,
Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.
was not, in your estimation, 'directly focused on an individual'?
It sure looks to me like an ad hominem.
Reenk Roink
06-09-2006, 23:30
It sure looks to me like an ad hominem.
Oh there are many other examples too...
I have already pointed them out (the minus point scale, cartoon, etc...) but Pindar's selective responses omit them...
Geoffrey S
06-10-2006, 00:35
Do you think the Left in Holland is notably different that in the U.S.?
As Kralizec said well, yes. The fact that there are more than two parties means there is a sharper divide between different left-wing (and right-wing) styles represented the various political parties, ranging from populist to more elitist attitudes on both the right and the left, and people vote accordingly. There isn't a universal left or right, and quite frequently politicians nominally on the same side of the political spectrum are at each other's throats about various issues; presumably since they're more in competition with each other for votes than with politicians with more radically different ideas from their own.
It's got its advantages, and disadvantages. Biggest advantage is that it tends to keep things quite balanced over longer periods of time and prevents anything too radical, creating reasonable stability; on the flip side this is also a disadvantage since policy changes can get very bogged down which leads to compromises that don't keep anyone happy, leading to more radical stances among more populist politicians. Pim Fortuyn was the most obvious example of a more radical populist politician emerging as a reaction to dissatisfaction about the compromising of earlier governments, but there are others.
Absolutely...I believe the correct categorization for gah would be interjection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interjection). I look forward to seeing it in the 2010 O.E.D.
What is your definition of a word? Do any series of letters put together apply? Gah might be used as an interjection, but that refers to grammar. It could also be a noun or a verb or anything one wanted for example: Gah! The gahs gahed. Placing something in a grammatical context does not thereby make it a word.
I'm not the poster you refer to, but I think so. The most obvious difference is that the left (or the right, for that matter) is seperated into different parties, so each can mantain a clear course (whereas in the US democrat party, issues like gay marriage and wealth distribution can still drive the party to the verge of schism)
Before and during Fortuyns tenure as a politician (cut short by his murder), the PvdA (Labour, the largest leftist party here) was criticized as being aristocratic, ruling from the assumption that they were entitled to power. And that during a cabinet period where they were part of, they were responsible for not dealing with slumbering issues like failed immigration, particulary of muslims. All things considered, I'd say that the pre-2003 PvdA had a lot in common with the Democrats.
Based on what you've posted: what definition would you use for the Left?
Ah, I see. Your statement to Reenk Roink that, quote, was not, in your estimation, 'directly focused on an individual'?
It sure looks to me like an ad hominem.
Recall what you typed: "I believe he was pointing out that you had just engaged in one, and gently advising you to refrain from doing so in the future." and my response: "That would of course have been a failure to understand then as the original was not personal whereas his was directly focused on an individual." If you compare the two references this should be clear.
The second quote you now put forward is not tied to the above. It is presenting something different. That post was: "Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School. " The thrust of the post is explaining my stance on why gah is for the retarded. It is a general statement. The last sentence is focused on an indivdiaul: Reenk Ronik who I assumed he was in High School. Evidently, this wasn't correct, but it appears I wasn't too far off.
Oh there are many other examples too...
I have already pointed them out (the minus point scale, cartoon, etc...) but Pindar's selective responses omit them...
You are confused. You should reread the thread you are thinking of. You lost points for showing a lack of resolve after posting you would never respond to me again. The reference to cartoon was my promise not to treat you like a cartoon if you could return to the actual topic. My original comments on the retardation that is gah had nothing to do with you. You inserted yourself into the discussion out of some loyalty to the inanity. That was your own choice and had nothing to do with personal attack.
As Kralizec said well, yes.
Hello,
Could you reply to the same question I asked Kralizec: Based on what you've posted: what definition would you use for the Left?
Having any opinion lends itself to emotionalism.
I don't think so. Emotionalism suggests being a slave to one's emotions not the simple presence of emotion.
If Leftism is not the cause, then the fault is not with Leftism.
The stance would be that insofar as Leftism leads to identity politics then the emotionalism comes to the fore as any stance thereby becomes a personal matter as opposed to say a theoretical or policy issue.
Also, there has been no evidence that shows some correlation between leftism and emotionalism, and your conclusion is based on you having selective attention with some of those who use only emotion.
It seems most of the topic related replies gave some credence to the view in one fashion or another.
Reenk Roink
06-10-2006, 03:18
The last sentence is focused on an indivdiaul: Reenk Ronik who I assumed he was in High School.
Thanks for using my proper pseudonym, but it's Reenk Roink.
Evidently, this wasn't correct, but it appears I wasn't too far off.
And what is the intended meaning of this exactly?
Reenk Roink
06-10-2006, 03:22
You are confused.
No.
You should reread the thread you are thinking of.
I have.
You lost points for showing a lack of resolve after posting you would never respond to me again.
I didn't lose points, you said you took points off. Your words certainly had no effect on me.
The reference to cartoon was my promise not to treat you like a cartoon if you could return to the actual topic.
Ok. It still is mockery.
My original comments on the retardation that is gah had nothing to do with you.
If "Gah is for the retarded" and Gah is for me, in that I use Gah, than indirectly...
You inserted yourself into the discussion out of some loyalty to the inanity. That was your own choice and had nothing to do with personal attack.
Your inference of my motive is incorrect.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-10-2006, 03:52
Recall what you typed: "I believe he was pointing out that you had just engaged in one, and gently advising you to refrain from doing so in the future." and my response: "That would of course have been a failure to understand then as the original was not personal whereas his was directly focused on an individual." If you compare the two references this should be clear.
You are claiming that your original post was a group-bash? You think your original post should not have been posted?
I disagree, saying all leftists are egotistical is quite mild and does not qualify as a group bash. I merely tried to show you why people took it personally. Since you seem offended by my post you must admit that peoples reactions to the original are due to its tone and not because of some inherent emotionalism of the left.
Thanks for using my proper pseudonym, but it's Reenk Roink.
Sorry, I misspelt.
And what is the intended meaning of this exactly?
That your young. The young are often creatures of passion and ideal. Thus the desire to draw your sword in defense of gah.
I didn't lose points, you said you took points off. Your words certainly had no effect on me.
To have points minused is to lose points.
Ok. It still is mockery.
No, it's a conditional.
If "Gah is for the retarded" and Gah is for me, in that I use Gah, than indirectly...
Gah is for the retarded. It retards thought and is inane: as in empty. Whether you include yourself with the gah lobby is your own affair: nothing compels it be so, it is your own choice. Further, whether you personalize the issue is also your choice.
Your inference of my motive is incorrect.
OK, the choice was still your own.
You are claiming that your original post was a group-bash? You think your original post should not have been posted?
No and no.
I disagree, saying all leftists are egotistical is quite mild and does not qualify as a group bash.
I agree.
I merely tried to show you why people took it personally.
I don't think that was your purpose.
Since you seem offended by my post you must admit that peoples reactions to the original are due to its tone and not because of some inherent emotionalism of the left.
I was not offended by your post. Personal attacks do not bother me. I simply think its wrong for Moderators (regardless the forum they post in) to engage in personal attacks as being a Moderator means they represent the Org. in a certain capacity and should reflect a standard decorum.
I am also opposed to Moderators trying to justify their breaches as was demonstrated in post #120 and/or then shifting their justification later as demonstrated in the post I'm responding to.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-10-2006, 13:48
No and no.
I quoted you post and substituted "Pindar" for "leftists". You cannot claim that mine is a personal attack without claiming yours was a group bash. Since you agree with me that your post was not a group bash, you rightly don't consider mine a personal attack. You're just being contrary.
I really was quoting a liberal blog by the way :laugh4:
Kralizec
06-10-2006, 15:36
Based on what you've posted: what definition would you use for the Left?
The Left: people who consider themselves leftist.
I don't think "the left" can further be generalised objectively. In the Netherlands, we have a fairly big libertarian party (economicly right wing, socially left wing), a christian centrist party (usually tilts a bit to the right on both economic and social issues), Labour wich is both economicly and socially left, environmentalists and even a party that is economicly leftist, but socially conservative (the Christian Union)
The only party we have that can really be considered conservative is the SGP, wich doesn't even allow women to enter the party.
What is your definition of a word? Do any series of letters put together apply? Gah might be used as an interjection, but that refers to grammar. It could also be a noun or a verb or anything one wanted for example: Gah! The gahs gahed. Placing something in a grammatical context does not thereby make it a word.
Pindar, your fixation on Gah is really quite strange. You are out of touch and out of sync with the Backroom, and more importantly, the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a far better expert on the nature of our language than you are, sir.
No, any series of letters do not apply as words, to answer your silly little rheotorical. But in English usage makes the word. There are all sorts of made-up words in the field of computers -- if they are used long enough, they get to join the English club. I can't believe I'm trying to explain how word acquisition works in English to a guy who should know better. I'm just going to re-post the essential quote on the subject of what is or is not a word, and you can do whatever lawyerly dance around it you like:
The Vocabulary of a widely diffused and highly cultivated living language is not a fixed quantity circumscribed by definite limits ... there is absolutely no defining line in any direction: the circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference.
I quoted you post and substituted "Pindar" for "leftists". You cannot claim that mine is a personal attack without claiming yours was a group bash. Since you agree with me that your post was not a group bash, you rightly don't consider mine a personal attack. You're just being contrary.
So you don't think your post was a personal attack. Very telling.
I don't think group bashes and personal attacks are equivalent. You asked if I was claiming my original post was a group bash. I answered "no" as I wasn't making that claim. I do think the original commentary is an attack on the Left however. I think that is obvious.
I really was quoting a liberal blog by the way :laugh4:
Cite the blog. Of course you realize this would need to be something that was posted prior to your own that you then quoted. I'll be interested to note the blog and the dates it was posted to compare with your post. Why are there no quotation marks?
Pindar, your fixation on Gah is really quite strange. You are out of touch and out of sync with the Backroom, and more importantly, the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a far better expert on the nature of our language than you are, sir.
I have no fixation with gah. I didn't introduce the topic here. I suggested to several gah posters to return to the actual topic of the thread. Oddly, I was accused by one that asking posters to return to the thread topic was some kind of game or ruse on my part. I have simply defended my stance.
Your comment on the OED is odd. The OED doesn't list gah as a word.
No, any series of letters do not apply as words, to answer your silly little rheotorical. But in English usage makes the word. There are all sorts of made-up words in the field of computers -- if they are used long enough, they get to join the English club. I can't believe I'm trying to explain how word acquisition works in English to a guy who should know better.
1)So any series of letters does not apply as a word.
2)Usage makes a word.
3)If they are used long enough they get to join the English club.
It would seem from 2 that any series of letters if used are a word which undercuts 1. People here certainly use gah so it must be a word. This would also mean if I simply type "ghtr is" that is also a word since I am using it. Use isn't qualified so I'm uncertain whether it applies to marks, marks that are letters or expands to sounds uttered.
Is gah then a word? Has it been used long enough to join the club? If you say yes, what's the standard of measure? I think most take inclusion in dictionaries as the point of actual admittance. Since gah isn't in any dictionaries I know of this would seem to indicate no, it isn't a word. If you agree it isn't a word then whither the dogmatism in its defense?
I'm just going to re-post the essential quote on the subject of what is or is not a word, and you can do whatever lawyerly dance around it you like:
The Vocabulary of a widely diffused and highly cultivated living language is not a fixed quantity circumscribed by definite limits ... there is absolutely no defining line in any direction: the circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference.
Are you suggesting this quote is a definition of what a word is? It looks like a comment on vocabulary and how languages change. If that is correct then it isn't a defintion of what a word is or appear essential at all to this converstaion. I have not argued languages don't change. I have pointed out the obvious, gah is not a word. If at some future point the English speaking world embraces gah so be it. At present, it remains an inanity.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-10-2006, 20:00
So you don't think your post was a personal attack. Very telling.
I don't think group bashes and personal attacks are equivalent. You asked if I was claiming my original post was a group bash. I answered "no" as I wasn't making that claim. I do think the original commentary is an attack on the Left however. I think that is obvious.
Why did you start a thread that you considered an attack on the left?
Group bashes can and have recieved 2-point warnings, same as personal attacks. Since you post recieved no warning (it didn't deserve one), my post was not out of line, simple. If you found it objectionable then maybe you can see the objections people had to your post, that's what I'd hoped to show you.
Cite the blog. Of course you realize this would need to be something that was posted prior to your own that you then quoted. I'll be interested to note the blog and the dates it was posted to compare with your post. Why are there no quotation marks?
:inquisitive:
Kanamori
06-10-2006, 20:20
I can't believe I'm trying to explain how word acquisition works in English to a guy who should know better.
That's how talking with Pindar always is.~D At least though, the topic and the point are very clear and the discussion actually gets somewhere when he acts like that. Often, people operate w/ so many uncommunicated pretenses that the actual substance of the issue cannot be addressed.
I don't think so. Emotionalism suggests being a slave to one's emotions not the simple presence of emotion.
Alright then, this all seems to be begging the question of whether or not another person can tell when a person's position is based either solely on emotion or with some combination of emotion and reason. You are not the person in question, and one cannot tell how much reason another person actually uses to reach their position. Assuming that a person will articulate exactly how they reached their conclusion is not valid. I will accept your definition as it is so far.
The stance would be that insofar as Leftism leads to identity politics then the emotionalism comes to the fore as any stance thereby becomes a personal matter as opposed to say a theoretical or policy issue.
The fact remains that unless all leftists are emotional then you cannot reasonably come to the conclusion that leftism causes, or is responsible for, emotionalism. If it can be shown that one leftist is not necessarily emotional, then thinking that there is a causal link there would be illogical. Also, if is not the cause, then it cannot be responsible for some thing that did not necessarily come from it.
It seems most of the topic related replies gave some credence to the view in one fashion or another.
First, this is assuming a coherent definition of leftism which has not been shown. Second, the responses here are not necessarily representative of all leftists. Third, even if it could be shown that somehow leftists were necessarily emotional, we've not established a firm defintion, and it is not clear where such a conclusion would apply. In order for the conclusion that leftism is necessarily emotive to have credence, one would have to show the causal link of responsibility. Such a link has not been shown, and the conclusion is w/o reason.
Also, I think it is a bit funny that someone will claim they are being insulted by being called by their name that they chose.
Byzantine Prince
06-10-2006, 20:42
Pindar, why does it matter how we use Gah for? I don't personally use it, but you do understand that once a word is used enough people will catch on to it. The people that use Gah, use it because it has become a habit, not because they necessarily wish to denounce a specific meaning, and so put themselves in a position of having to make a choice. They simply reply Gah, automatically.
As it concerns the left, I think your article's position is also pretty inane and, may I say, retarded. The reason: Most countries have a very wide spectrum of left wingers, by grouping them you are overgeneralizing immensly.
On another note, politicians deliberately use emotionalism to excite and relate the crowd to a base need for passion, but they are usually faking it to get what they want anyways, so who cares? This topic is inane, and retarded.
Kanamori
06-10-2006, 20:54
As a hunch, I think that he voices his opposition because he enjoys people excited for no good reason. It is fun to say things that people like to get riled up about, especially over something that is not important enough to warrant getting excited about. That's also why I like to drive a bit more slowly than normal.:laugh4: Seeing people get so ornorey over something so inconsequential makes my day more fun.
Geoffrey S
06-10-2006, 20:57
Could you reply to the same question I asked Kralizec: Based on what you've posted: what definition would you use for the Left?
In a general sense, their own. Politicians, at least here, tend to try to make clear where they belong in the political spectrum, if only to appeal to specific voters. It makes it easier to place them either on the Right or Left. Actual population is more difficult to define, but those that can really be considered Left or Right can usually be tied to a specific party and the rest float about a bit.
If I had to be more specific as to what Left and Right mean to me, to me Left seems to be more about more rules with regards to economic matters (mainly about where to spend money, particularly in social services) and looser regulations in personal lives; the Right would leave the decisionmaking with regards to spending money to those who actually earn it and have it, but tends to be slightly stricter on personal lives. These are very vague definitions, and to be honest I don't really believe Right or Left can or should be defined, let alone that I'm capable of it. Generally I'd base myself in what the parties/politicians themselves claim to be.
What definition would you use for the Right and the Left?
I had forgotten how much fun it is to argue with a lawyer when the lawyer chooses to be obtuse. Establishing that water is wet becomes a long, strange, tedious journey, filled with disputation over the nature of wetness.
Your comment on the OED is odd. The OED doesn't list gah as a word.
See my earlier comment about the OED versus the 40 immortals, and the differing attitudes toward word adoption in English vs. French. If you still don't understand the contrast and underlying point, or if you wish to quibble further, let me know.
1)So any series of letters does not apply as a word.
2)Usage makes a word.
3)If they are used long enough they get to join the English club.
It would seem from 2 that any series of letters if used are a word which undercuts 1. People here certainly use gah so it must be a word. This would also mean if I simply type "ghtr is" that is also a word since I am using it. Use isn't qualified so I'm uncertain whether it applies to marks, marks that are letters or expands to sounds uttered.
Ah, the joys of hashing over an issue with a lawyer/philosopher -- and if I'm not mistaken, an academe. Use is not qualified, well, there you have it. What on earth could a Lemur have meant by the term "use"? Such vagueness is intolerable. Heh. (Is "heh" a word?)
I seriously doubt that you misunderstood "usage makes a word" on such an epic level; rather you seem to be engaging in Clintonesque disputation on what exactly "is" is. Language usage and adoption is too broad and too interesting a subject to be debated in such a stilted, tendentious manner. If you really are perplexed by the theory "usage makes a word," alert me to what part of it makes no sense to you, and I'll go grab some articles for you to read. But like I said, I doubt you've misuderstood at all. Rather, you're choosing to dispute an obvious linguistic truth to build your argument:
Is gah then a word? Has it been used long enough to join the club? If you say yes, what's the standard of measure? I think most take inclusion in dictionaries as the point of actual admittance. Since gah isn't in any dictionaries I know of this would seem to indicate no, it isn't a word. If you agree it isn't a word then whither the dogmatism in its defense?
Pindar, you silly, silly man. Dictionaries adopt words years after the fact. If a word is being used by a group of people who have a common definition, then the word is valid within that group. If a word spreads after that fact, and if it eventually is widespread enough to be adopted into a dictionary, then the word will probably have a nice, long life. Do I really need to explain the dynamics of word adoption and obsolescence to you, or are you just choosing to be lawyerly on the point to defend your indefensible position on the usage of a commonly accepted expression in the Org?
Are you suggesting this quote is a definition of what a word is? It looks like a comment on vocabulary and how languages change.
Right, right, the comment is entirely too imprecise, because it doesn't specifically reference Pindar and Gah. How could I interject it into this discussion?
Pindar, you loveable little lawyer, the quote relates to how the O.E.D. views the adoption and elimination of words in English. If you don't understand the role the O.E.D. played in defining how English works, let me know, and I'll send you a reading list. If you don't see how that philosophy and methodology applies to this argument, let me know, and I'll send you a Clue Phone.
Papewaio
06-11-2006, 01:15
Actually Pindar-sama substituting names to show how a comment is a bash at others is something I do fairly regularly. In no time has the learning tool been blamed.
So far you have started a thread that is a broad bash at an entire group. And then you try and limit it purely to that group.
2 point warning.
Then you have called anyone who uses Gah retarded in an emotional attack. That is a personal attack on entire sections of the Org.
2 point warning.
You have been called up on both, but instead of showing contrition for your ways you have blamed the people pointing out your errors. It's like blaming a cop for your speeding and then arguing with him.
Another 2 point warning.
Personally I think you should stop obfuscating information. Say things in a clear and concise manner, and cease from using emotionalism to try and get your points across. At this rate you appearing to be a closet emotionalist pinko. :laugh4:
The Left: people who consider themselves leftist. I don't think "the left" can further be generalised objectively.
Hmmm, that's kind of a bugger then. How can one make distinction between Leftism in the U.S. and Holland? How would you compare the Leftism of Holland with the Leftism of your neighbors?
The only party we have that can really be considered conservative is the SGP, wich doesn't even allow women to enter the party.
I don't imagine these fellows are too popular.
Why did you start a thread that you considered an attack on the left?
Because I'm interested in rhetoric and I wanted to see what others thought of the fellow's commentary especially as it applied to the larger notion of identity politics. There are some people on these boards with interesting ideas.
Group bashes can and have recieved 2-point warnings, same as personal attacks. Since you post recieved no warning (it didn't deserve one), my post was not out of line, simple. If you found it objectionable then maybe you can see the objections people had to your post, that's what I'd hoped to show you.
Your post was a personal attack. Further is was done by a Moderator. I don't think that can be justified based on what I understand are the standards for Moderators and the goals of the Org. As far as comparisons between the general and particular: if one says the Right is evil and another says Bob the Org. member is evil. These are not held to the same standard. Why? The one is a concept. The other is not. The one does not require personalization the other is explicitly personal.
Where is the hyperlink to the blog you quoted from?
That's how talking with Pindar always is.~D At least though, the topic and the point are very clear and the discussion actually gets somewhere when he acts like that.
I do what I can, because as you know, I care. ~:)
Alright then, this all seems to be begging the question of whether or not another person can tell when a person's position is based either solely on emotion or with some combination of emotion and reason.
The stance of the commentary revolves around identity politics. The standard is when a person personalizes the theoretical. This personalization would then be the source of the emotionalism should it occur. The commentary is looking at the Left. Let me juxtapose another group that was brought up before: the Religious Right. From the stance of the common man does the Religious Right (RR) meet the same basic criteria as the author's object of criticism? I think if one looked at the various red button issues for the RR one could argue they do. Now one might ask why does the RR personalize topics like abortion or gay rights etc? The answer would be because their faith is part and parcel of how they define themselves and know the world. In short, their faith informs all that follows. Now the Left is not dependant on a religious ideology, but it may be that the rhetorical stance of identity politics parallels the religiosity of the RR.
The fact remains that unless all leftists are emotional then you cannot reasonably come to the conclusion that leftism causes, or is responsible for, emotionalism.
The focus is the role identity politics plays in Leftism in general which may tie to emotionalism. See the above comment.
First, this is assuming a coherent definition of leftism which has not been shown.
I've been asking some of the Europeans this to see how they would answer, but I would put forward that the Left or Leftism is any political affiliation or loyalty that takes as its touchstone Socialism through to Marxist thought. The stance then inextricably ties the political with the economic along specific lines and roles.
Second, the responses here are not necessarily representative of all leftists.
No doubt.
Third, even if it could be shown that somehow leftists were necessarily emotional, we've not established a firm defintion, and it is not clear where such a conclusion would apply.
See my comment on identity politics above which I think is the real crux of the issue more than any emotionalism which I think is more an effect and tell me what you think.
In order for the conclusion that leftism is necessarily emotive to have credence, one would have to show the causal link of responsibility. Such a link has not been shown, and the conclusion is w/o reason.
Emotive and emotionalism are not the same, though exploring the emotive character of identity politics might also be interesting.
Also, I think it is a bit funny that someone will claim they are being insulted by being called by their name that they chose.
I agree.
Pindar, why does it matter how we use Gah for?
It doesn't. The whole ballyhoo that led to the rise of the gaggle and the gah lobby began after I put forward a poll, one responder said he wouldn't participate because gah was not an option in the poll. I replied to him saying: gah is for the retarded. This incensed those for whom gah is near and dear.
I don't personally use it, but you do understand that once a word is used enough people will catch on to it. The people that use Gah, use it because it has become a habit, not because they necessarily wish to denounce a specific meaning, and so put themselves in a position of having to make a choice. They simply reply Gah, automatically.
That is why it retards thought.
As a hunch, I think that he voices his opposition because he enjoys people excited for no good reason. It is fun to say things that people like to get riled up about, especially over something that is not important enough to warrant getting excited about.
Now, would I do that? Scandalous indeed.
If I had to be more specific as to what Left and Right mean to me, to me Left seems to be more about more rules with regards to economic matters (mainly about where to spend money, particularly in social services) and looser regulations in personal lives; the Right would leave the decisionmaking with regards to spending money to those who actually earn it and have it, but tends to be slightly stricter on personal lives. These are very vague definitions, and to be honest I don't really believe Right or Left can or should be defined, let alone that I'm capable of it. Generally I'd base myself in what the parties/politicians themselves claim to be.
What definition would you use for the Right and the Left?
I think your ideas are shared by your countryman.
I gave a simple definition of the Left earlier in this thread. I posted: "the Left or Leftism is any political affiliation or loyalty that takes as its touchstone socialism through to Marxist thought." For the Right or Rightism, as it were, I would say they appeal to one if not all of the following: such appeals to capitalism economically, limited government politically, save for in matters of national security, and tradition socially.
See my earlier comment about the OED versus the 40 immortals, and the differing attitudes toward word adoption in English vs. French. If you still don't understand the contrast and underlying point, or if you wish to quibble further, let me know.
Gah remains absent from the OED. Do you want to argue it is soon to be included? If not, the OED references do nothing for your cause.
Ah, the joys of hashing over an issue with a lawyer/philosopher -- and if I'm not mistaken, an academe. Use is not qualified, well, there you have it. What on earth could a Lemur have meant by the term "use"? Such vagueness is intolerable. Heh. (Is "heh" a word?)
This doesn't answer the incoherence of your earlier statements.
Pindar, you silly, silly man. Dictionaries adopt words years after the fact. If a word is being used by a group of people who have a common definition, then the word is valid within that group. If a word spreads after that fact, and if it eventually is widespread enough to be adopted into a dictionary, then the word will probably have a nice, long life. Do I really need to explain the dynamics of word adoption and obsolescence to you, or are you just choosing to be lawyerly on the point to defend your indefensible position on the usage of a commonly accepted expression in the Org?
So your standard of measure is a word is something with an agreed definition in a group and that is it valid because the group says so. Does gah have a common definition? If a group (which I guess is two people on up) agree on some word meaning something, is everyone else bound to recognize the group's decision? If so why? If not, then what protects the group's decision from being labeled inane or retarded or anything else?
Pindar, you loveable little lawyer, the quote relates to how the O.E.D. views the adoption and elimination of words in English.
That isn't what your quote says. It mentions that vocabulary in a living language doesn't have a well defined center and isn't a fixed quantity. It doesn't mention views on adoption or elimination.
Actually Pindar-sama substituting names to show how a comment is a bash at others is something I do fairly regularly. In no time has the learning tool been blamed.
Show me some examples.
So far you have started a thread that is a broad bash at an entire group. And then you try and limit it purely to that group.
2 point warning.
Then you have called anyone who uses Gah retarded in an emotional attack. That is a personal attack on entire sections of the Org.
2 point warning.
You have been called up on both, but instead of showing contrition for your ways you have blamed the people pointing out your errors. It's like blaming a cop for your speeding and then arguing with him.
Another 2 point warning.
As of this post I have no warnings in the section that lists them. If you believe I have done what you posted above then I should have six warning points and I think that would mean being banned. All the more as this would be a public castigation which I didn't know was how warnings were given. If that doesn't occur then I will dismiss this post as disingenuous.
Byzantine Prince
06-11-2006, 08:28
I think your ideas are shared by your countryman.
I gave a simple definition of the Left earlier in this thread. I posted: "the Left or Leftism is any political affiliation or loyalty that takes as its touchstone socialism through to Marxist thought."
That's pretty limited and you know it. Or did you not study the works of Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Bertrand Russell, who are the proponents of liberalism, a major left-leaning ideology?
Marxist thought is more extreme than any leftist country today will accept.
For the Right or Rightism, as it were, I would say they appeal to one if not all of the following: such appeals to capitalism economically, limited government politically, save for in matters of national security, and tradition socially.
The Fascists have disproven almost all of those characteristics.
capitalism economically - most right leaning regimes have a tendency to be totalitarian
limited government politically - most fascist regimes rig elections, and torture dissidents
tradition socially - social tradition could be anything...
Fascism, a major part of conservatism, cannot be ignored when talking about the right in general, can it?
Now I don't know enough about Leo Strauss's views on conervativism but they don't necessarily apply to what the international ideology of it is. You do however show your bias, but portaying the left as extreme socialists and the right as libertarians with traditional values.
Tribesman
06-11-2006, 09:48
My my , thats clever Pindar , finally you give a definition of what you mean , then you say that you have already given a definition .
I am glad you finally removed the vaguenes and fuzzyness from the words you used .
Now you write of Marxism and socialism , what of Chritianity ? Jesus was a bit of a radical leftist /liberalist /progressivist wasn't he .
He certinly doesn't fit with your rightist definition , which also raise the question about the right.......and tradition socially.......now what could be more emotional about identity and perspective than traditions ?
As of this post I have no warnings in the section that lists them. If you believe I have done what you posted above then I should have six warning points and I think that would mean being banned. All the more as this would be a public castigation which I didn't know was how warnings were given. If that doesn't occur then I will dismiss this post as disingenuous.
Now that is the funniest thing I have read here in a long time .
Geoffrey S
06-11-2006, 10:36
To be honest I see very little point in the definition Right or Left. Perhaps it makes it easier for people to define themselves as such and removes some responsibility for independant thought, but it seems an easy way out to me when it comes to forming individual ideas. It's so much easier for politicians to define themselves as such to appeal to certain voters, and easier for the public to define themselves as either Left or Right so their chosen side can decide what they should think for them.
The Fascists have disproven almost all of those characteristics.
capitalism economically - most right leaning regimes have a tendency to be totalitarian
limited government politically - most fascist regimes rig elections, and torture dissidents
tradition socially - social tradition could be anything...
Fascism, a major part of conservatism, cannot be ignored when talking about the right in general, can it?
Now I don't know enough about Leo Strauss's views on conervativism but they don't necessarily apply to what the international ideology of it is. You do however show your bias, but portaying the left as extreme socialists and the right as libertarians with traditional values.
That's a pretty cheap shot at the right, comparing them to fascists.
As for the Left, I don't think Pindar compared it directly to Marxism and socialism; what he said is that that is where the basis frequently lies, and I think he'd be right in that regard. Marxism or socialism may not be directly represented, but it is frequently common ground with regards to the origin of leftwing organisations.
Hmmm, that's kind of a bugger then. How can one make distinction between Leftism in the U.S. and Holland? How would you compare the Leftism of Holland with the Leftism of your neighbors?
With regards to Europe it's more doable now since parties tend to associate themselves with similar leaning parties in the European parliament. But defining the Left on their own terms does create the issue you present, namely that labeling something Left is a very relative and subjective term that doesn't necessarily contain the same meaning in other countries. In such a case it's necessary to define parties in other countries on a relative term; as such the Republicans would be considered rather further on the Right in Holland, and the Democrats barely centre-Left.
It's these sort of ambiguities which lead to my statement in the first paragraph of this post.
I don't imagine these fellows are too popular.
They're not, though they get their share of votes from the countryside.
As for Gah. If people want to use the word, fine. It can represent a statement of annoyance or a feeling of something being irrelevant, much like d'oh. But it has no place in polls or debates, and using it is merely for the sake of using it with no real point; as such it would retard a debate, and an automatic response to a Gah poll option is laziness.. Then again, if someone uses Gah in a poll option or an actual post, I could care less what their contribution could have been and it's perfectly possible to ignore it.
Tribesman
06-11-2006, 11:06
That's a pretty cheap shot at the right, comparing them to fascists.
True , and what are fascists ?
What about those national socialists , they must be left since they are socialists , and they liked symbolism to identify themslves and their ideals so they must be leftist , hitlers speeches contained lots of emotion didn't they , and the emotion of the crowds was clearly evident so they must be leftist progressives then . But then again they did like traditional values and cultural identity , so they must be rightists, strong believers in national security , definately rightists .
Could this be an example of the whole premise of this topic being complete bollox ?
Now if we take William Joyce as an example , as he would be a 1940's eqivalent of a blogger .
What would his emotional take on identity politics tell us ?
Definately a Gah issue isn't it :2thumbsup:
Geoffrey S
06-11-2006, 11:48
Nominally Hitler was a (national)socialist, however.
Tribesman
06-11-2006, 12:04
Nominally Hitler was a (national)socialist, however.
Exactly , but who would describe the Nazis as leftist/liberal or progressive ?
Now you could describe them as very emotional , which means they must be leftist .
"Nazism , Fascism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.
If one is smart, then one believes in fascism.
If one believes in fascism, then one is smart.
Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in fascism.
And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in nazism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a racial or political superiority that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely national prestige which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.
This tends to make the right more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
Reenk Roink
06-11-2006, 14:52
To have points minused is to lose points.
But I'm telling you here, I really didn't "lose points". You wrote in some posts "minus one point..." but to date, all my points still remain...:laugh4:
Gah is for the retarded. It retards thought and is inane: as in empty.
Amazingly, I can't agree.
Whether you include yourself with the gah lobby is your own affair: nothing compels it be so, it is your own choice.
I do use 'Gah' as an option in polls occasionally, especially when the other answers are unsatisfactory. I guess I am included with the 'Gah' lobby then.
Gah remains absent from the OED. Do you want to argue it is soon to be included? If not, the OED references do nothing for your cause.
I never said that Gah was in the O.E.D., but thanks for propping up a lovely straw man! He'll look good when you knock him over.
While you heroically render straw men horizontal, I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse. Word adoption. English language. Difference from other languages. Crucial role O.E.D. played in same. Elasticity of English vs. other languages. *Yawn*
This doesn't answer the incoherence of your earlier statements.
My statements could only be declared incoherent by someone who deliberately chooses to misinterpret every word and misconstrue every reference. Against that level of nit-picking, I'll admit, I haven't the patience to wrestle over what "is" is. Philosophy students and contract lawyers may consider it fun, but that's their business.
BTW, what exactly do you mean by "incoherent" anyway? I don't see that anyone's arguments in this room have had to do with a lack of a fixed phase relation between two waveforms. Are you referring to the incoherence of light, sound, or another waveform? Your use of "incoherenece" is unclear.
So your standard of measure is a word is something with an agreed definition in a group and that is it valid because the group says so.
Riiiight, Pin. I thought up that definition all by my lonesome. I was having my breakfast cereal, and I said, "Let's invent some rules for linguistics, and then let's post them on the Backroom of the Org." That's exactly how it happened.
It's not my job to defend or define basic rules of linguistics to a lawyer. As I said before, if the process of word adoption in English is unclear to you, let me know, and I'll send you some reading material.
That isn't what your quote says. It mentions that vocabulary in a living language doesn't have a well defined center and isn't a fixed quantity. It doesn't mention views on adoption or elimination.
You read that quote to mean a living language doesn't have a well-defined center? Interesting, since it states the opposite. As to how a discussion of the characteristics of English might have a bearing on our discussion, well, I'll leave it to you to see the fixed phase relation between two waveforms.
Have we gone far enough OT yet?
Ironside
06-11-2006, 16:24
"Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos" All the commentary was not posted, only a paragraph. Do you note "these people" The identifier of the pronoun isn't noted as "isms" are not people. The actual thrust of the commentary was Left wing blogs.
Thank you for sharing this information now, had you done it your initial post then you had probably gotten responces in the direction you actually wished for.
Exactly were did you think that the readers would notice that this wasn't dragging in quite a few different ideologies and ideas into a big label called the Left and accused them to invest way too much feelings into an issue?
I think the misdirection is telling.
Of what? That is easy to provoke a emotional responce that contains little information on the subject at hand? Yes, I'm aware that pointing out you doing it, was a example of me doing it.
I don't think this is correct. The rhetorical tone of the Left in the U.S. has changed. I think the impetus may be from the Reagan Revolution followed by the end of the Cold War.
Possibly, I don't have that much insight on US politics before my (political) time. But then what policies did the left change after that? As for the shift to depend on actual politics and not something else, it has to correlate with a policy shift. If gives the shift, we can then analyse it and see if there's any true correlation or if it's depending on other factors.
So, you've succumb I see. You want to argue refutation cannot be serious?
No, I'm saying that using a refutation while preposing my own idea would either be not my style (attacking other's ideas during the presentation of my own idea) or be self-defeating (calling my own idea as gah would be quite stupid, if I don't find my idea as good, then why present it?)
Really? That's amazing you have very different standards than I. If I had a student who sued it as a response to a position he wouldn't fare so well.
As I said, it's a summary of my response to a position, not my entire responce. Why? Well you said it yourself.
Gah isn't a word.
Yes and no are words. The mimicry fails.
What exactly do you call something that is commonly used as a word, but isn't in the dictionary? As you have established that there's words and a random selection of letters, but as the language evolves it has to be a stage in between.
And for a theoretical discussion, what would happen with your position, if gah is established as a word? Would it change? If not, on what grounds?
That's a pretty cheap shot at the right, comparing them to fascists.
In a way, it's pretty fitting in this thread.
For 5 pages, we have been informed that it isn't much difference between how people here on this forum who define themself as left in any way and how militant greens (the first group that is on the left and who falls into the catogory described at the first page I could think of) identify themself with the politics they're doing.
The Fascists have disproven almost all of those characteristics.
capitalism economically - most right leaning regimes have a tendency to be totalitarian
limited government politically - most fascist regimes rig elections, and torture dissidents
tradition socially - social tradition could be anything...
Congratulations- you've just shown that the right is not facist. :bow:
Byzantine Prince
06-11-2006, 19:46
Congratulations- you've just shown that the right is not facist. :bow:
Congratulations on not understanding the word disproven, the point of my post, or being able to spell fascist properly.
Ser Clegane
06-11-2006, 19:48
This thread grew rather long - unfortunately not necessarily due to a discussion of the topic but also diue to meandering into other topics, e.g., the meaning of "Gah", the definition of left vs. right, and last (but certainly not least) an exchange of snide remarks and close-to(if not even worse)-personal attcks.
This thread will be closed now - for any focused discussions of the "sub-issues" of this thread please feel free to start new dedicated threads.
Thanks for all contributions to the topic
Ser Clegane
:bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.