🇳🇱
@Free_Idealist Nah there are tons of moderate left, right, and centrists i dont like too.
@freemo Mysterious stuff, the definitions of extreme left and right... won't find two people on this planet agreeing there
@admitsWrongIfProven Its usually only the people existing at these extreme ends who struggle to see the line where the extreme begins. Moderates on the left, right, and center are much better at it.
@freemo I find left and right to be hard enough as they are, without the "extreme".
It may have all started out with royalists sitting on the right, but from there a lot has happened.
@freemo Care to try defining it together or would that be too stressful for the evening?
@admitsWrongIfProven i can define it with a simple drawi g, give me a minute.
@freemo Sure. And i interpret this as "yeah, now is a good time".
So i started out with the historical meaning. I would guess Aristocracy is not your fancy, so let's go on to the concept of "conservative", which means "change things slowly and pay attention to not make anything worse", which is something claimed to be on the right. This, i would say, is a good concept most of the time.
I do not see it currently in any politics.
Left, that would be against the royalists, pretty indistinct. Generally associated with peoples rights, contrary to first the royals, then the rich.
I do not see that either in the current political landscape.
Now, before diving in any deeper, do you actually see any effective measures to either side in politics? Family values, peoples rights, any of the topics claimed by either side?
So, provided you don't say "but they do have values, everything's great", we would have to determine what we actually mean - political parties? What people on masto toot? It's not like it was all aligned in set groups.
@admitsWrongIfProven tha ks to horshoe theory we dont even need to define right or left to define if your in the extreme of either.
@freemo Well, this sounds very american, more focussed on positions than actual contents... horseshit theory i would say, or is there anything relevant to this theory? Pertaining to contents, not positions?
@admitsWrongIfProven you are the one who came in exerting extremism was hard to define, not me. We can debate left vs right too, its just making thwt distinction is not relevant to my post.
@freemo Sorry, i don't understand. Maybe i should back off and let you define what you mean.
@admitsWrongIfProven for the record i find that the extreme left and right are almost nonexistant in most coubtries outside the usa, so there is less need to define it.
@freemo So you are not interested in defining left and right? Totally ok if it is so, just asking, will back off if requested. Would love to see that graphic in any case.
@admitsWrongIfProven I am fine with defining left and right as a fun exercise. I just want to point out it is a tangent not particularly relevant or neccesary to frame the original post.
@freemo I can see that, but if we would devolve to horseshoe theory level, i don't see any meaning to it - position fights are just senseless occupation therapy imo.
@admitsWrongIfProven the original post is about political extremismand how it is at odds with objective consensus... any form of ideological political extremism is inevitably going to take this form, tbats just common sense. It also forms the core of horse shoe theory since when you become that radicalized it your ideals really dont matter since they are so absurd you wont ever approach them in the first place and instead devolve into contrarianism as the core.
@freemo Just my point, if people go to that length... sorry, had to flake out for a moment there.
I see now you had a thing about extremism and didn't actually talk about left an right - and i was infatuated with the idea of defining left and right, which would be a hard thing to do, and as such interesting.
The point you made stands - if anyone is extremist and stops to listen to reason, that is very bad. Never wanted to contradict that!
If you would be interested in trying to define those difficult words, the offer stands, but no bad feelings if you want to leave it at "your point was correct".
So extremism side in terms of politics is easy to Identify... If someone has a set of ideologies where anything that is even slightly different, introducing nuance, is "the enemy" then you are dealing with someone on the extreme end.
If you are on the left and see centrists as evil as the right, and even the moderate left as evil, then you are probably an extremist.
Basically you just need to look at how well defined the walls of the silo is.
So yea extremism is easy to identify... now right vs left I think that is harder because you can be right and left in different categories its not an all or nothing thing.
For example communists, socialists.anarchists, progressives. are all generally agreed to as "left" though having quite a bit of ideological difference. Generally I'd say the common denominator of the left vs right is the left focuses on ensuring individuals power is mitigated (to some extent) and that the power and resources need to be spread out and not allow the natural processes of of concentration of power in a small group of individuals.
Therefore common themes among the left are redistreibution of power and wealth and/or the prevention of centralized power (as is the case of anarchism, which even sees the government as bad).
the right on the other hand seems to see a strong centralized power as ok, so long as it comes about through natural power-dynamics. Generally prefering free-markets and seeing accumlated power in a central place as both natural and good.
@freemo I see, and i think you added a lot here. We should not argue about left or right, we should discuss goals!
I hold dear to get down to what is actually what humans want. Not ideals far removed, but practical concerns.
So with the basic needs, i guess we agree that food and shelter should be available for everyone existing. You exist as an individual being, you should have food and shelter. So far, so uncontroversial?
The question would be, how can that be achieved? Would a central power ensure it, or rather skim resources for themselves until supply is scarce?
On a further note, i think having a task worthy of doing (not to be confused with a job, which is often enough not worthy) is integral to happiness. Would a central organization or market actually select for useful tasks or just keep people busy so the peace is kept? Or would a prevention of central power help here, discarding meaningless busywork?
I will hold back and not just spout utopian wishes, i want to hear your thoughts before i say more. And did i skip any human needs you deem important?
> So with the basic needs, i guess we agree that food and shelter should be available for everyone existing. You exist as an individual being, you should have food and shelter. So far, so uncontroversial?
While I would certainly agree with you on this point im not sure you can say its uncontroversial. I know many people, at least in the USA, who think some people should be left to fend for themselves, even if that means death.
Its achieved by following my exact set of opinions as a left-leaning centrist of course :) If that werent the case then I wouldnt believe in it :)
> Would a central organization or market actually select for useful tasks or just keep people busy so the peace is kept?
Im not sure what a central market is... you mean like a regulated market, the opposite of a free market?
@toiletpaper @admitsWrongIfProven
I dont think that was much of a change at all. The spectrum remained the same, free-market proponents are certainly more left than dictators or monarchs.. it was true then as it is true now to say, from the perspective of a dictator free-market supporters are left of them.
@toiletpaper @freemo Hmm, the toilet paper has a point, what is commonly referred to as non-extremist left was never in there... it was about the old rich vs. who wants to get rich.
So we have neoliberal (left, they call themselves), monarchist as "centralized power" and, not featured, "decentralized power" or anarchist, never in a center of power. Of course, to the last, anarchists don't want to be in power. A view i can subscribe to, but would not sacrifice the discussion we (freemo and me) started to.
@freemo, do you acknowledge that right is associated with centralized power? I thought i read that in your posts, but i want to be sure. Is left vs. right maybe the question of centralized power vs. decentralized power, with decentralized power far off because decentralizing it forbids taking power without giving up your conviction?
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Regarding centralized power, I don't think of left–right this way. (I'm in US, FWIW) Here, at least, the "right" party, Republicans, are the party of deregulation and lower taxes – at least that's the brand: I know a lot of times they vote for higher taxes and control, but to the point here it's what they talk about and sell themselves as. I know, we want to think of Trump as "authoritarian" because of his statements about controlling media and so on, but even his administration is known for focusing on deregulation. (Whether they did so successfully is an interesting question, but not the point here.) The "left" party, Democrats, have instead branding about more about sensible government doing sensible things, yes? Regulating where needed and so on.
Of course, we think of right-authoritarians like fascists etc. Worth noting though even those often keep businesses privatized at least (Pinochet, Hitler, etc)
Additionally, as noted here, left-anarchists are anti-statist as well, so clearly correlation between what people talk about as left-right and being statist/anti-statist is not so great.
>deregulation and lower taxes
Im not sure thats really saying anything different. Deregulation is a way of basically saying "We wont try to manipulate who has power and who doesnt, we will let natural processes define that and if power accumulates in a central place, so be it"...
Taxes are a bit more nuanced, generally a progressive tax structure where the rich are more taxed than the poor/middle class is about wealth redistribution. Therefore lower taxes, particularly when we talk about taxes closer to being flat, then that too is about "let power distribute where it naturally will".
@freemo Looking forward to the graphic, btw
@freemo genuinely curious - which science is it that the radical left seems to have a problem with? Just looking for a representative example. Because the ones that come to mind are all right bugaboos - but maybe I have a blind spot.
@Biggles Thry seem to manipulate or reject science that disagrees with their stance on a lot of things.
A good example was covid, i was am a research scientist who worked on covid throughout the pandemic. Me and many covid scie tists pointed out criticisms of the lefts ideology and opinions along the way, for example ones ability to be reinfected with covid or the liklihood that a covid vaccine coukdnt produce herd immunity. I was fairly violently attacked by the left on these issues despite being well within mainstream science and even accepted. Of course the right had its own issues with covid.
I tend to find similarly dishonest antiscience when talking about guns, which the left seems to assert quite confidently without even understand the basic ideas they are debating. This is both from the science behind guns themselves and the analysis of the stastics and consequences of gun laws.
Rejecting science that disagrees with your current beliefs, whatever they are, seems to be a thing many people do - left, right, or center. Even actual scientists who should know better do it, sadly. Cognitive Dissonance is a harsh mistress. But thank you for the reply - I at least now can see where it comes from. I think with the Covid especially many people formed unsupported opinions early on and close their mind to new evidence, to their disadvantage, and it's an uphill battle to get people to understand that biology is a bit more wibbly-wobbly than many (including doctors) believe it is.
@Biggles Well no arguments there... the difference is when it is part of group-think, done in unison, and clearly ideologically gated its a very different thing.... nearly all of the extreme-left rejected science en masse to the same tune, much as the extreme right did... the center when it happens it is on a very individual basis and not something that manifests such consistent patterns along party lines.
The problem with covid wasnt simply about early on opinions, it was more about contrarianism.. Anything, and I mean anything, the right formed as an opinion the left had to reject, and violently fight against.. I mean hell I saw more than a few lefties get into fist fights over COVID nonsense with righties.
Fair criticism. In all liklihood many of the alternative treatments would have had marginal impact at best... I mean never in the history of medicine have we ever been able to find a significant cure to a virus outside of vaccines, never.
Any treatments that could have potentially help would have addressed the symptoms and likely not cured the virus..
That said your right that blind suppression was at play and some of the treatments may atleast have been helpful if not a complete cure.
@freemo @Biggles Outside of vaccines abd antibiotics, almost all medicine is fixing symptoms.
People will generally recover from the virus if you can avoid lung involvement and other bad things. There is plenty of evidence that some of the alternative treatments the right was pushing did help with that.
If not, the virus was just going to get whoever it was going to get. Nobody has ever produced a sterilizing or long-lasting vaccine against a coronavirus either.
Thats not really true.. nutrient defiencies are cured with the proper nutrients, poisons are cured with their proper antidoes (methanol being cured with ethanol for example), surgeries usually directly fix the underlying issues (mending bones for example). In fact outside of mental illnesses and viruses most diseases can be cured directly rather than just mitigating symptoms.
Thank you. I was just going to mention scurvy (and other vitamin deficiency diseases), and my own thyroid hormone replacement, which also doesn't fit. (My thyroid took a hike in my 20's - seems to run in the family)
But - it gets off topic. Maybe my local peer group is special, but I never saw significant pushback on vaccinations there, and we definitely lean liberal. The only real pushback in my very limited peer group has been from one who believes all illness comes from diet, and another who things both the virus *and* the vax are a government plot. Both very far right (wives). I mostly disregard their advice :-) but again, my peers and experience may be atypical, as we're mostly computer dorks...
Ah - that may explain my perceptions, at least there. I didn't notice any strong pushing because I was already convinced. We lost 3 family members to the virus before the vax came out, and we were fairly desperate for a *real* solution - and I had read quite a bit of good makes-sense-to-my-comp-Sci-background info on the new class of vaccines. (We've lost one more since - a sister-in-law in Texas who was positive the vax was poison. Sigh. And we've seen multiple infections since, but the rest of us are vaccinated, and have done very well. Small sample size I know)
My opinion on the vaccine has been consistent... It deserved caution when it was authorized for emergency use and didnt clear the usual safety checks... now that it has full FDA approval its pretty stupid not to be vaccinated.
That said when i was voicing my concerns over the vaccine and other COVID issues (Keep in mind i am a research scientist who worked on COVID) I got very abusive resistance to my ideas fromt he extreme left and right, even though most of my ideas were fairly standard mainstream opinions.
@freemo Does extreme center exist?
@freemo "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.
@customdesigned Are you claiming the vast majority of scientists have never and will never agree on anything? That doesnt sound right at all.
@freemo That disagreement is how science advances into new knowledge. Historically, the majority has been wrong/incomplete by current theories.
The issue I have is not with the majority opinion, but with censoring the scientists with a minority opinion.
@customdesigned Ok so its not an oxymoron at all, people should just be ok challenging the majority.
I would agree, you should. But when your opinions contradict the majority on almost everything then you are likely the one in the wrong.
@freemo don't forget the rare cases where they seem to agree and therefore are the best science and proof that all those beliefs are valid.