They're a pretty chaotic brand of corporatism (neo-liberalism?). They'll adopt positions that aren't necessarily corporatist, but with the end goal of more corporatist policies. Like the gay-baiting. They don't give a shit about gay people but they can use the people who do to get more republicans in power.
Centrist is a weird term. Pretty much any position is going to be either a at least little right wing or a little left wing. Centrism would normally be used to describe a position that is only slight to either side, like civil unions perhaps.
More to the point, you're buying into the media/Republican frame. Don't do that, it doesn't reflect reality.
How do you assume that?
Then how is gay marriage very liberal?
It removes a standard social norm and advocates extending rights to more people. Both are pretty strong aspects of liberalism.
If there is one thing history is good at showing, it's that liberalism becomes the norm/center in society. Anti-slavery? Liberal. Social security? Liberal. Medicare? Liberal. Clean air and water? Liberal. Food that doesn't kill you? Liberal. I could go on and on.
Expanding notions of equality and who it applies to certainly is.
Which still doesn't fucking make it far left!
You're talking this far more seriously than it was meant to be. I already said my intention was not to marginalize. I explained my thinking in using the modifier "far", even made a little chart thing. Yet you're still hounding on my use of the word "far".
Styrofoam, liberal though you are, to claim that gay marriage is currently a "far left" issue is to have your viewpoint influenced by conservatives in some way or another. Furthermore, to refer to issues of equality in terms of liberal or conservative ideologies instead of in human right contexts is to cede argumentative ground to those groups who oppose the expansion of civil rights.
I would place the "meat is murder" / PETA people at extreme left, and maybe place the "civil unions for all, no more state sanctioned marriages for anyone" as far left.
I was wondering if we could define the far left/right as people who hold opinions that less than 25% of the entire electorate believed in, and the extremes as being the 5-10% range, what kind of whacky right-wing beliefs could be classified as simply right-wing instead of far-right.
Styrofoam, liberal though you are, to claim that gay marriage is currently a "far left" issue is to have your viewpoint influenced by conservatives in some way or another. Furthermore, to refer to issues of equality in terms of liberal or conservative ideologies instead of in human right contexts is to cede argumentative ground to those groups who oppose the expansion of civil rights.
I contest the first claim. And you're framing my use of the term "far" in ways I already said was not my intention.
And I don't see how identifying political claims and opinions as whatever part of the spectrum that actually are in makes the other side any more right. Something can be a civil rights issue and be a left wing position.
I was wondering if we could define the far left/right as people who hold opinions that less than 25% of the entire electorate believed in, and the extremes as being the 5-10% range, what kind of whacky right-wing beliefs could be classified as simply right-wing instead of far-right.
Placement in a political spectrum isn't decided by popular support.
Styrofoam, liberal though you are, to claim that gay marriage is currently a "far left" issue is to have your viewpoint influenced by conservatives in some way or another. Furthermore, to refer to issues of equality in terms of liberal or conservative ideologies instead of in human right contexts is to cede argumentative ground to those groups who oppose the expansion of civil rights.
I contest the first claim. And you're framing my use of the term "far" in ways I already said was not my intention.
And I don't see how identifying political claims and opinions as whatever part of the spectrum that actually are in makes the other side any more right. Something can be a civil rights issue and be a left wing position.
I was wondering if we could define the far left/right as people who hold opinions that less than 25% of the entire electorate believed in, and the extremes as being the 5-10% range, what kind of whacky right-wing beliefs could be classified as simply right-wing instead of far-right.
Placement in a political spectrum isn't decided by popular support.
However, if enough of a society comes to agree with a thing, wouldn't that suggest that your spectrum needs recalibration?
For instance, it would be fairly absurd to speak of the abolition of slavery as a "left wing" idea in a modern context. If enough of a society embraces an idea from the left (or right), doesn't that become the center?
Sammich, I think the problem here is that you're using "far left" in a way that nobody else does.
I think the problem here is you're hounding on the usage of a adjective from several pages ago that came across in a way other than the one I have repeatedly said was my intention.
For instance, it would be fairly absurd to speak of the abolition of slavery as a "left wing" idea in a modern context. If enough of a society embraces an idea from the left (or right), doesn't that become the center?
Perhaps you may have a point when it comes to such fundamental shifts in social norms. Gay marriage is no where close to "slavery is bad" in levels of social acceptance.
And even then automatic and inherent equality is a left wing position as opposed to tiered equality based in wealth/power/whatever on the right, as you see in works like Atlas Shrugged.
A fund manager for Smith Barney is getting off without felony charges after he allegedly ran over a cyclist with his Mercedes and fled the scene in Eagle, Colorado, because, the DA says, felony charges would be bad for the fund manager's business.
Martin Joel Erzinger will not be charged with a felony because "Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession," according to District Attorney Mark Hurlbert.
Erzinger oversees over $1 billion in assets for "ultra high net worth individuals, their families and foundations," according to Worth.
Erzinger fled the scene July 3 after allegedly striking Dr. Steven Milo with his 2010 Mercedes Benz sedan on Highway 6, according to court documents. Erzinger later called the Mercedes auto assistance service to ask for his vehicle to be towed but did not report the accident to law enforcement. He claims he was unaware the cyclist had been hit.
For instance, it would be fairly absurd to speak of the abolition of slavery as a "left wing" idea in a modern context. If enough of a society embraces an idea from the left (or right), doesn't that become the center?
Perhaps you may have a point when it comes to such fundamental shifts in social norms. Gay marriage is no where close to "slavery is bad" in levels of social acceptance.
And even then automatic and inherent equality is a left wing position as opposed to tiered equality based in wealth/power/whatever on the right, as you see in works like Atlas Shrugged.
Ow. My head hurts. That's a relatively recent thing, like, post-Reagan.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Martin Joel Erzinger will not be charged with a felony because "Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession," according to District Attorney Mark Hurlbert.
That is an excellent reason to charge him with a felony or is running over a person and then fleeing the scene supposed to not have drastic consequences now?
A fund manager for Smith Barney is getting off without felony charges after he allegedly ran over a cyclist with his Mercedes and fled the scene in Eagle, Colorado, because, the DA says, felony charges would be bad for the fund manager's business.
Martin Joel Erzinger will not be charged with a felony because "Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession," according to District Attorney Mark Hurlbert.
Erzinger oversees over $1 billion in assets for "ultra high net worth individuals, their families and foundations," according to Worth.
Erzinger fled the scene July 3 after allegedly striking Dr. Steven Milo with his 2010 Mercedes Benz sedan on Highway 6, according to court documents. Erzinger later called the Mercedes auto assistance service to ask for his vehicle to be towed but did not report the accident to law enforcement. He claims he was unaware the cyclist had been hit.
This is what happens when you don't look backward. Bankers (and CIA officials; Justice isn't filing charges re: CIA destroying videotapes of torture) think they're above the law because they are.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
I gotta say, that is impressive for all the wrong reasons.
Posts
They're a pretty chaotic brand of corporatism (neo-liberalism?). They'll adopt positions that aren't necessarily corporatist, but with the end goal of more corporatist policies. Like the gay-baiting. They don't give a shit about gay people but they can use the people who do to get more republicans in power.
How do you assume that?
It removes a standard social norm and advocates extending rights to more people. Both are pretty strong aspects of liberalism.
Centrist is a weird term. Pretty much any position is going to be either a at least little right wing or a little left wing. Centrism would normally be used to describe a position that is only slight to either side, like civil unions perhaps.
That makes it liberal, not very liberal.
If there is one thing history is good at showing, it's that liberalism becomes the norm/center in society. Anti-slavery? Liberal. Social security? Liberal. Medicare? Liberal. Clean air and water? Liberal. Food that doesn't kill you? Liberal. I could go on and on.
The answers are: read your posts over the last week, read the Times/Post for a week, read some polling data, respectively.
Now we're just haggling over the degree, which really isn't an interesting debate. If my use of the prefix "far" offended you, sorry.
How I'm buying into the Republican narrative. I haven't claimed the 2010 election was a mandate on Obama or any such garbage.
Pretty sure the GOP narrative is a lot things besides Dailykos's political position.
You're stating conventional liberal positions are far left positions.
Well, the GOP narrative is to frame anything other than a return to the gilded age as far left.
I've already said that wasn't my intent.
The original intention was taking into mind some sort of spectrum like
Extreme left (truthers)
Far Left (Gay Marriage)
Center Left (Civil Unions)
and so on into the right wing.
People are seriously nitpicking.
Replace is with "Bestiality is a human right" then if you want, its not important.
Expanding notions of equality and who it applies to certainly is.
Which still doesn't fucking make it far left!
I may be reading your chart wrong, but are you suggesting that the gays were responsible for 9/11?
You're talking this far more seriously than it was meant to be. I already said my intention was not to marginalize. I explained my thinking in using the modifier "far", even made a little chart thing. Yet you're still hounding on my use of the word "far".
Calm down.
I was wondering if we could define the far left/right as people who hold opinions that less than 25% of the entire electorate believed in, and the extremes as being the 5-10% range, what kind of whacky right-wing beliefs could be classified as simply right-wing instead of far-right.
MWO: Adamski
I contest the first claim. And you're framing my use of the term "far" in ways I already said was not my intention.
And I don't see how identifying political claims and opinions as whatever part of the spectrum that actually are in makes the other side any more right. Something can be a civil rights issue and be a left wing position.
Placement in a political spectrum isn't decided by popular support.
However, if enough of a society comes to agree with a thing, wouldn't that suggest that your spectrum needs recalibration?
For instance, it would be fairly absurd to speak of the abolition of slavery as a "left wing" idea in a modern context. If enough of a society embraces an idea from the left (or right), doesn't that become the center?
I think the problem here is you're hounding on the usage of a adjective from several pages ago that came across in a way other than the one I have repeatedly said was my intention.
Bestiality is a Republican thing.
Perhaps you may have a point when it comes to such fundamental shifts in social norms. Gay marriage is no where close to "slavery is bad" in levels of social acceptance.
And even then automatic and inherent equality is a left wing position as opposed to tiered equality based in wealth/power/whatever on the right, as you see in works like Atlas Shrugged.
Ow. My head hurts. That's a relatively recent thing, like, post-Reagan.
Then it became mainstream.
Notice how it is no longer "Far Left".
Ideologies slide. One something has 50% or more approval it's no longer "Far" anything, other than "overdue."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This is what happens when you don't look backward. Bankers (and CIA officials; Justice isn't filing charges re: CIA destroying videotapes of torture) think they're above the law because they are.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass