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:

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.?

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.