-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
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:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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 .
...?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
This thread makes me feel intelectually small,
No worries, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing. ~:)
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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...
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
gah
You illustrate the above point well. Please confine yourself to the topic.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
sOrrey mR; pinDar sir , we retrards just cayn't do dem topix wiV big words inum .
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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).
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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 ?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
There is no reference to percentages in the initial commentary.
Unless I'm mistaken, most means more than half.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Initial post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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...
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
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.
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."
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
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:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Perhaps you missed the subtlety; you were getting a bit emotional.
A hit sir, a most palpable hit. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.
I was quoting a liberal blog; I thought you might find the rhetorical posture interesting.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I was quoting a liberal blog; I thought you might find the rhetorical posture interesting.
:laugh4:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
So the conclusion is that the use of yes and no is for the retarded...
Yes and no are words. The mimicry fails.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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?
Quote:
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?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Entertaining topic, seemingly about nothing much at all.
So it has become.
Quote:
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.?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
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.
I believe the correct categorization for gah would be interjection. I look forward to seeing it in the 2010 O.E.D.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
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?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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 .
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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 .
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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,
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
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...
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Absolutely...I believe the correct categorization for gah would be
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin-Rules
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
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?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Evidently, this wasn't correct, but it appears I wasn't too far off.
And what is the intended meaning of this exactly?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
You are confused.
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
You should reread the thread you are thinking of.
I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Thanks for using my proper pseudonym, but it's Reenk Roink.
Sorry, I misspelt.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Ok. It still is mockery.
No, it's a conditional.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Your inference of my motive is incorrect.
OK, the choice was still your own.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
You are claiming that your original post was a group-bash? You think your original post should not have been posted?
No and no.
Quote:
I disagree, saying all leftists are egotistical is quite mild and does not qualify as a group bash.
I agree.
Quote:
I merely tried to show you why people took it personally.
I don't think that was your purpose.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.
Quote:
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?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
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:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
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.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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?