The “Far-Right” fallacy

Where no two people are likely to agree.
Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:24 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Is Islam Far Right?


Wow, venerable works in Islam. What a shock. Just like a denier with Jews.


Did you accidentally delete the rest of your post? Because what you've said here has no substance or coherency whatsoever.


Nope, I didn't delete anything, poo.
I just knew you'd work in Islam in some way, like a Holocaust denier with Jews. Bigots can't help it, whatever group you hate finds it way into everything you write.


:roll: More ham-fisted false equivalency. I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

Why wouldn't I work Islam in? It is, after all, a political ideology, and it is sometimes incorrectly described as "Far Right".

So, do you have anything substantive to say about my analysis of Islam or are you just going to hide behind your asinine snarl-words as per usual?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

The "Far-Right" fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:26 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: Iosif Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin : October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists. December 17, 1925
V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishers), 1934
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Care to provide a source that isn't hidden behind a language barrier??
Iosif Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin : October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists. December 17, 1925
V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishers), 1934

The citations were, are and still are, in English. You really are mildly retarded, aren't you? :lol:


I'm not seeing anything on that page which redirects to an English translation. The citation doesn't mean {!#%@} if it's written in a language that none of us can read, you retarded Islamist.
Last edited by Fab Yolis on Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28348
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:31 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Not only does nationalism not belong on any particular part of the political spectrum, it is actually incompatible with both the most Far Left and Far Right parts of the spectrum.


What exactly did Marx write and predict about Nationalism in Das Kapital?

That will keep you busy. Your first attempt at actually reading books on the topic. .
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28348
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: What an idiot.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:39 am

Iosif Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin : October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists. December 17, 1925
V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishers), 1934


Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:I'm not seeing anything on that page which redirects to an English translation.
Generally publishers print in what we call "books" or "journals". That's what we also read in university. Does your sheep breeding college in Kansas have a library, or do you all watch you tube videos all day? :lol:


Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:..... if it's written in a language that none of us can read[/i], you retarded Islamist.
I read and speak Russian. It helps to get around in Russia. I have had Harbin Russian business partners for decades

After 1952, the Soviet Union initiated a second wave of repatriation of Harbin Russians. By the mid-1960s virtually all Harbin Russians had left Harbin. There were several Russian connections in Australia resulting from refugees leaving Harbin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Russians

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

The "Far-Right" fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Donald Trump on twitter wrote:What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
Donald Trump on twitter wrote:If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!
Donald Trump on twitter wrote:What I am saying is stay out of Syria
Donald Trump on twitter wrote:AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Trump then bombs Syria for the first time since 2011, in 2017.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:President Trump has to govern in the real world, and that involves making compromises where necessary. Why should I hold this against him, especially since the action he took was as consistent with the non-interventionist ideal as present political conditions allow??
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo, previously wrote: You mean like the destabilization and subsequent US bombing of Syria and Libya that occurred under Hillary Clinton's watch when she was Secretary of State?

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=27525&p=545168&hilit=foreign#p545062


President Trump also said that he inherited a mess from the Obama Administration, and it certainly doesn't help matters that he's had retarded Islamists like you and the Democrats ranting and raving about idiotic muh Russia conspiracy theories. President Trump may very well have not bombed that Syrian airfield if it weren't for you imbeciles breathing down his neck about the Putin BS.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Refer to the highlighted red bit, you retarded Islamist.
1) I'm an Australian atheist and not a Muslim.


I didn't say you were a Muslim, I said you were a (retarded) Islamist.

2) Trump bombed Syria which is not "non-interventionist".


I didn't say it was non-interventionist, I said it was as close to being non-interventionist as present circumstances permit.

3) Read about special pleading in skeptical logical fallacies. [
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... l-Pleading


Oh look, you managed to provide an link to a page in English this time! :lol:



VKTW really is a mindless pro-Trump idiot.


Matthew Ellard is an Islamist moron who couldn't be original to save his own life.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

The "Far-Right" fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Iosif Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin : October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists. December 17, 1925
V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishers), 1934


Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:I'm not seeing anything on that page which redirects to an English translation.
Generally publishers print in what we call "books" or "journals". That's what we also read in university. Does your sheep breeding college in Kansas have a library, or do you all watch you tube videos all day? :lol:


Provide a link to an English-language source or quit wasting everyone's time.


Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:..... if it's written in a language that none of us can read[/i], you retarded Islamist.
I read and speak Russian. It helps to get around in Russia. I have had Harbin Russian business partners for decades

After 1952, the Soviet Union initiated a second wave of repatriation of Harbin Russians. By the mid-1960s virtually all Harbin Russians had left Harbin. There were several Russian connections in Australia resulting from refugees leaving Harbin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Russians


Tell it to someone who gives a {!#%@}.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:10 am

Is the Alt-Right Far Right?

The term “Alt-Right” was first coined in 2008. Broadly speaking, the Alt-Right political movement is a reaction against Neo-Conservatism, Cultural Marxism (the neo-Communist, pro-“diversity”, anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian and anti-Western ideology of Social Justice Warriors), and “Cuckservatives” who prioritize the appeasement of Neo-Cons and SJWs over their own professed Conservative principles.

“Alt-Right” is a nebulous term used to a describe a range of people and groups, many of whom have significant ideological disagreements with one and other. To the extent that the term is applied to these various people and groups, the “Alt-Right” is defined not by what it stands for but rather by what it opposes. However such a definition effectively turns the term “Alt-Right” into a conceptual dumping ground lacking in ideological coherency; apart from maligning certain people and groups through guilt by specious association, this also makes it effectively impossible to ascertain where the Alt-Right fits on the political spectrum.

We must therefore derive a more narrow definition of Alt-Right, and it stands to reason that our refined definition should be consistent with the views of those who are proud (and even territorial) of the label rather than those who try to distance themselves from it. The most prominent example of those who wear the Alt-Right label with pride is Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute (a white nationalist thinktank) and webmaster of AlternativeRight.com. I am not aware of any succinct summary of the ideology of Spencer and his Alt-Right ilk, however we can develop a reasonably clear understanding of this ideology by looking at media coverage of Spencer’s eviction from the 2017 CPAC (which he attended as an audience member, not as a speaker). Spencer was kicked out of CPAC because the organizers of the event considered his views to be fundamentally incompatible with the values and tenets of Conservatism.

Spencer, for the most part, agreed with this assessment. In a video he made about the incident, Spencer admitted that he and his fellow Alt-Righters are openly disdainful of core Right-wing concerns about small government, free market capitalism and individual liberty. Spencer’s Alt-Right is primarily concerned with conserving social institutions relating to European racial and cultural identity, and they are very pragmatic about how to achieve this. While they oppose the foreign interventionism of the Neo-Cons and the desire of the SJWs to use the State to impose Political Correctness on Western society, the Alt-Right eagerly advocates severe restrictions on immigration and government programs to transfer populations to other regions on the basis of race in order to create homogenous ethno-states. There is an unmistakably collectivist mindset at the core of Alt-Right ideology which puts it sharply and fundamentally at odds with the Right-wing core beliefs in individualism and small government.

Conclusion

The collectivist, identitarian and White Nationalist Alt-Right of Spencer and the collectivist, identitarian and anti-white Cultural Marxism of SJWs are really two sides of the same ideological coin. The Alt-Right’s lack of aversion to using the State, market interventions and restrictions on civil liberties to achieve its political goals pretty much guarantees that the Alt-Right would become addicted to using them if it ever came into power. Though the Alt-Right shares the Right’s reverence for traditional social institutions, the commonalities between the two begin and end there - the Alt-Right has more in common with the SJW leftists and Neo-Con closet leftists than it does with Conservatives and Libertarians. The Alt-Right could just as accurately if not more accurately be called the Alt-Left.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28348
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

VKTW is an idiot.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:48 am

Iosif Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin : October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists. December 17, 1925
V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishers), 1934

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Provide a link to an English-language source or quit wasting everyone's time.
Nope. They are both there, on the internet in English, and in any basic history about the CPSU. I see you do not know what a citation is and can't use google or books.

I guess you are used to only learning from You Tube at Kansas Sheep Husbandry and Agricultural College.
:D

Are you claiming Lenin, Stalin and Bukharin never wrote these papers about their reasons for divergence from Marxism? How about we have a bet. You leave the forum forever if I link you to these papers? :D

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Matthew Ellard is an Islamist moron who couldn't be original to save his own life.
Are you still claiming I am a Muslim? :lol:

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

The "Far-Right" fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Provide a link to an English-language source or quit wasting everyone's time.
Nope. They are both there, on the internet in English


Then provide links!

I see you do not know what a citation is and can't use google or books.


I see you don't understand that a citation is useless unless the text itself is accessible. Either that, or you don't really want anyone to be able to actually read your sources because they will show you to be full of {!#%@}.

I guess you are used to only learning from You Tube at Kansas Sheep Husbandry and Agricultural College. :D


Careful, you're going to burn yourself out if you try to maintain that level of wit and originality!

Are you claiming Lenin, Stalin and Bukharin never wrote these papers about their reasons for divergence from Marxism?


No, I'm claiming that I can't read them in the original Russian.

How about we have a bet. You leave the forum forever if I link you to these papers?


How about you just provide links to English-language versions of the damn papers.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Matthew Ellard is an Islamist moron who couldn't be original to save his own life.
Are you still claiming I am a Muslim? :lol:


No, I'm claiming that you're an Islamist.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28348
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Making it up as you go!

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:15 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you claiming Lenin, Stalin and Bukharin never wrote these papers about their reasons for divergence from Marxism?
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: No, I'm claiming that I can't read them in the original Russian.
This is becoming quite entertaining. I have given you the full citations in English from the English translation and you still don't know how to look them up?

This brings me back to my original point about you suffering Dunning Kruger Syndrome.

Here you are, an uneducated Trump follower, lecturing us about nationalism and socialism without reading anything by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and so on. You don't know the basic differences between International Marxism, Nationalistic Stalinism, Marxist Leninism, Maoism, or any of the actual communist movements. You can't quote any communist intellectuals because you haven't actually ever read a book on communism. You are simply making it up as you go.
:lol:

You really are a total idiot!

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby OutOfBreath » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:50 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

In your last reply you seem to argue many ways simultaneously. First you reject that authoritarianism is connected to the left/right axis, while simultaneously criticizing my chart which explicitly deal with that. Then you argue that it IS connected, but only for the left or something. Confusing.

Furthermore, Your tentative definitions of right-wing has a "no true Scotsman" flavour to it. Or it seems you use the term in ways that most people dont and redefine the content of left/right after your own liking.

You seem to need further reading into what right-wing means generally and certainly what it has meant historically. I submit the wikipedia article with numerous dictionary references on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
wikipedia wrote:Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]

Although the right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries, the term extreme right-wing has also been applied to movements including fascists, Nazis, and racial supremacists.[21] From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism.[22] This general economic shift toward capitalism affected centre right movements such as the British Conservative Party, which responded by becoming supportive of capitalism.[23] In the United States, the Right includes both economic and social conservatives.[24] In Europe, economic conservatives are usually considered liberal, and the Right includes nationalists, nativist opposition to immigration, religious conservatives, and historically a significant presence of right-wing movements with anti-capitalist sentiments including conservatives and fascists who opposed what they saw as the selfishness and excessive materialism inherent in contemporary capitalism.[25][26]


...and for some history:
The Right has gone through five distinct historical stages: (i) the reactionary right sought a return to aristocracy and established religion; (ii) the moderate right distrusted intellectuals and sought limited government; (iii) the radical right favored a romantic and aggressive nationalism; (iv) the extreme right proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism; and (v) the neo-liberal right sought to combine a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional Right-wing beliefs in patriotism, élitism, and law and order.[9][28]


What you describe seems to be part of the "New right" which is a post WW2 phenomenon which gained prominence in the 80s (hence my references to Reagan):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Right#United_States

The right is not only about small government. Oftentimes and to many it doesn't even include that. It is an adherence to a "Natural order" or status quo hooked into tradition, religion and authority. Right wingers are often big fans of the military and military men. (Since the job of a military is to maintain and protect the status quo of the society)

If you reject those parts of the right, and want to term yourself an anarchist capitalist or something, be my guest. But dont try to appropriate terms that already have a meaning beyond what you would want them to mean.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby OutOfBreath » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:54 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Is the Alt-Right Far Right?

Nice attempt at whitewash, but you cant have it both ways. You cant first say that only those self-defining alt-righters should be counted on one side and contrast it with a general derisive "Cultural marxism" which you will find has noone self-identifying with, since it's basically a right-wing slur. So either there are none or few altirighters AND Cultural marxists. or there are plenty of both if we define them so.

So here, a more apt description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Right#Alt-right wrote:Alt-right

The alt-right is a right-wing to far right movement of ideologies that are an alternative to mainstream conservatism.[28][29] It has "more in common with European far-right movements than American ones"[24] and is unified by nationalism,[30] opposition to multiculturalism and immigration, rejection of egalitarianism,[24] and support for Donald Trump.[24][31][32] The alt-right includes beliefs such as neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, identitarianism, white nationalism, white supremacy, and Southern-secessionism.[24][33] The term was introduced by Richard Spencer's AlternativeRight.com in 2010, gained prominence in 2015 after being identified by critics, and became more popular in 2016 after being mentioned on television.[24][31][34] Proponents are said[by whom?] to use culture jamming and memes to promote their ideas. One leading proponent records parodies of Disney songs (such as I'll Make A Man Out Of You from Mulan) "with their discussions of white supremacy and generally racist and sexist lyrics". Some adherents also refer to themselves as identitarian, and criticize National Review and William F. Buckley for "not openly espousing, among other things, white nationalism, or white identarianism" such as in the video which is titled "The National Review" and is set to the tune of "The Bells of Notre Dame."[35] The alt-right is younger than mainstream conservatism,[24][32][36] and some express anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist views.[37]

Alt-right figures:
Andrew Anglin – editor of the The Daily Stormer[38]
Matthew Heimbach – founder of the Traditional Workers Party[39]
Richard Spencer – president of the National Policy Institute and founder of the blog Alternative Right[40]
Jared Taylor – founder and editor of American Renaissance. [41]
James Edwards - host of the white nationalist radio program on The Political Cesspool[42]
Pax Dickinson - co-founder and editor of crowdfunding site WeSearchr[43]
Emily Youcis - former Phillies Pistachio Girl turned creator of a online animated movie and series of skits featuring her cartoon character Alfred Alfer[44]


Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you claiming Lenin, Stalin and Bukharin never wrote these papers about their reasons for divergence from Marxism?
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: No, I'm claiming that I can't read them in the original Russian.
This is becoming quite entertaining. I have given you the full citations in English from the English translation and you still don't know how to look them up?


I'm not going to go trudge around looking them up. You make the claim, you cough up the evidence for it IN ENGLISH. If you think it wouldn't be hard for me then it should be even easier for you. Providing a link to a non-English webpage is a blatant pathetic cop-out.

Here you are, an uneducated Trump follower, lecturing us about nationalism and socialism without reading anything by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and so on.


If you think any of those authors have said anything that contradicts my analyses in any sort of compelling way, then by all means let us know! So far all you've done is inadvertently prove my point about National Socialism being hostile to capitalism, throw tired moronic ad-homs at me, and weasel out of my repeated requests for evidence of your shoddy argument regarding some minor point of contention which is barely relevant to the topic at hand anyway!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:59 am

OutOfBreath wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Is the Alt-Right Far Right?

Nice attempt at whitewash, but you cant have it both ways. You cant first say that only those self-defining alt-righters should be counted on one side and contrast it with a general derisive "Cultural marxism" which you will find has noone self-identifying with, since it's basically a right-wing slur. So either there are none or few altirighters AND Cultural marxists. or there are plenty of both if we define them so.


"Cultural Marxism" isn't a right-wing slur, it's an apt descriptive term for leftists who are preoccupied with the politics of cultural "class" warfare. "Alt-right", on the other hand, doesn't really tell you anything about what the Alt-Right stands for, and is misleading term especially when applied to those who define themselves as Alt-Right.

So here, a more apt description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Right#Alt-right wrote:


Apart from the flimsy assertion that it is Right-wing because it is similar to a "European Right", this description of the Alt-Right is broadly consistent with my own.
Last edited by Fab Yolis on Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:39 am

OutOfBreath wrote:First you reject that authoritarianism is connected to the left/right axis, while simultaneously criticizing my chart which explicitly deal with that. Then you argue that it IS connected, but only for the left or something. Confusing.


I don't reject that it is connected at all. What I have said all along is that authoritarianism is highly compatible with the Left because it necessarily involves big government. I criticized your chart because it takes the whole issue of authoritarianism out of the Left-Right spectrum and puts it on a spectrum all on its own, and I have already explained why I think this is both logically invalid and purposefully deceptive.

Furthermore, Your tentative definitions of right-wing has a "no true Scotsman" flavour to it. Or it seems you use the term in ways that most people dont and redefine the content of left/right after your own liking.


You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. It is the current definitions of Right and Left, such as they are, which have a "no true Scotsman" flavor to them. The whole point of starting this thread was to lay down a clear consistent set of principles by which Right and Left could be meaningfully defined, because the currently dominant personality-based definitions of them are not meaningful.

You seem to need further reading into what right-wing means generally and certainly what it has meant historically.


I am well aware of what it has meant historically, the problem is that there is so much variation and contradiction in what it has meant historically that it renders both it and the term "Left" effectively meaningless.


I submit the wikipedia article with numerous dictionary references on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
wikipedia wrote:Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]

Although the right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries, the term extreme right-wing has also been applied to movements including fascists, Nazis, and racial supremacists.[21] From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism.[22] This general economic shift toward capitalism affected centre right movements such as the British Conservative Party, which responded by becoming supportive of capitalism.[23] In the United States, the Right includes both economic and social conservatives.[24] In Europe, economic conservatives are usually considered liberal, and the Right includes nationalists, nativist opposition to immigration, religious conservatives, and historically a significant presence of right-wing movements with anti-capitalist sentiments including conservatives and fascists who opposed what they saw as the selfishness and excessive materialism inherent in contemporary capitalism.[25][26]


"Generally refer to" is not good enough, especially when there is no point calling it "Right" when other words like "traditionalism" or "conservatism" actually are descriptively apt.

"Has been applied to" does not mean they *were* Right, as I have demonstrated over and again by showing how fascists etc actually had more in common with the socialists than they did with classical liberals and free market capitalists. Moreover, many of those traits have been displayed by "the Left" throughout history and many of them are (or can easily be made) compatible with the core traits of the Left.


The right is not only about small government.


I didn't say it was. I said it was also about free markets, individualism, and cultural traditionalism. There is a natural ideological coherency between these principles, just as there is a natural ideological coherency between the core principles that I ascribe to the Left.

It is an adherence to a "Natural order" or status quo hooked into tradition, religion and authority.


That is traditionalism, and I already admitted that, like small government, it is *part* of what the Right is about.

Right wingers are often big fans of the military and military men. (Since the job of a military is to maintain and protect the status quo of the society)


People who are described as Right-wing are often big fans of military. But that doesn't make it Right-wing, nor does it provide a basis for lumping the Tea Party and Hitler into the same political category.

But dont try to appropriate terms that already have a meaning beyond what you would want them to mean.


I'm not doing that. In fact I'm doing the opposite of that, I am trying to narrow and clarify their meanings because the meanings they already have are effectively useless.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8386
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:32 am

Andrew Anglin – editor of the The Daily Stormer


What a fantastic person to be associated with.

:rotfl:
‘I have not left anybody in the dark about the fact that this time, millions of adult men would not die, and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not be burnt or bombed to death in the cities, without the actual culprit, albeit by more humane means, having to pay for his guilt.’
Adolf Hitler
Final Will and Testament

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28348
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:16 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Andrew Anglin – editor of the The Daily Stormer
What a fantastic person to be associated with. :rotfl:


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 6-120.html
VKTW used an Australian flag for his posts on the Rational Skeptic forum. I am assuming, from his anti-Islamic posts and crap "lectures", that he is a fan of the Australian extremist, Pro-Trump and anti-Islamic party called "One Nation".
one_nation_pauline_hanson_spook.jpg
He might even be an Australian.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby OutOfBreath » Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:43 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:I am trying to narrow and clarify their meanings (right/left) because the meanings they already have are effectively useless.

Ah, that explains why most here don't understand what you're talking about. You are trying to appropriate a general term with centuries of baggage (the right), and try to make it be a very narrow definition you are making up to suit your minority position on the right. And furthermore applying it retroactively on historical events. Thus you can wave away large tracts of the right-wing by claiming they are not "right" enough according to your peculiar standards.

It would seem to me you would be much better served by using a term like "libertarianism" or "anarcho-capitalism" to describe your position. If you are sincere in your anti-authoritarianism (meaning how authoritarian is usually understood, not as a synonym for "the left"), you have those choices at least. You could even throw in "classical liberalism" into the mix of choices. I refer again to my before-posted chart as a Reference for specific ideologies and tendencies.

I do get a feeling however, in your Trump-fandom, that you have no problem with right-wing authoritarianism, especially since you seem to be under the delusion that only "the left" can be authoritarian. You borrow the more or less coherent points that anarcho-capitalists can make(legalistic and naive they may be), but somehow work that into support for Trump, which is as much anathema to such a position as, say left-leaning democrats. (aka conservatives in the rest of the world)

If you wanna own "right-wing", fine. But then you'll have to eat the authoritarianism of tradition and religion with side dishes of nationalism and fear of "strangers" of varying hues. That's perhaps the historically most defining traits of "right-wing", no matter what peculiarities various smallish groups on the american right might come up with.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21637
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:45 pm

I wish you guys wouldn't complain so much when people decide reality needs to be edited.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8386
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:53 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:I am trying to narrow and clarify their meanings (right/left) because the meanings they already have are effectively useless.

Ah, that explains why most here don't understand what you're talking about. You are trying to appropriate a general term with centuries of baggage (the right), and try to make it be a very narrow definition you are making up to suit your minority position on the right. And furthermore applying it retroactively on historical events. Thus you can wave away large tracts of the right-wing by claiming they are not "right" enough according to your peculiar standards.

It would seem to me you would be much better served by using a term like "libertarianism" or "anarcho-capitalism" to describe your position. If you are sincere in your anti-authoritarianism (meaning how authoritarian is usually understood, not as a synonym for "the left"), you have those choices at least. You could even throw in "classical liberalism" into the mix of choices. I refer again to my before-posted chart as a Reference for specific ideologies and tendencies.

I do get a feeling however, in your Trump-fandom, that you have no problem with right-wing authoritarianism, especially since you seem to be under the delusion that only "the left" can be authoritarian. You borrow the more or less coherent points that anarcho-capitalists can make(legalistic and naive they may be), but somehow work that into support for Trump, which is as much anathema to such a position as, say left-leaning democrats. (aka conservatives in the rest of the world)

If you wanna own "right-wing", fine. But then you'll have to eat the authoritarianism of tradition and religion with side dishes of nationalism and fear of "strangers" of varying hues. That's perhaps the historically most defining traits of "right-wing", no matter what peculiarities various smallish groups on the american right might come up with.

Peace
Dan


Thanks for the above. I've tried to explain this (I think we all have) but Venerable insists that his definition is the only correct definition, which, is, of course, not the case.

The Right and Left meant different things in different eras. While the "Right" in the US of this time is staunchly against government interference the "Right" (especially in Europe) at different times was not. I posted two articles about Czarist and German governments both subsidizing and meddling in industry because at that time industry, especially the arms and transportation industry, were considered strategic assets. Both governments were "Right-Wing" (though properly I think we should call them "Conservative").

Trying to shoehorn different eras into modern definitions is a mistake. I have no issue with Venerable attempting to define modern movements as "Right" or "Left" (though his obvious biases make his definitions suspect) but the best thing for him would be to drop the historical comparisons because they simply do not fit.
‘I have not left anybody in the dark about the fact that this time, millions of adult men would not die, and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not be burnt or bombed to death in the cities, without the actual culprit, albeit by more humane means, having to pay for his guilt.’
Adolf Hitler
Final Will and Testament

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28348
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Changing the meaning of words is silly

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:07 am

Lewis Carroll already made fun of people, who try to change the meaning of existing words to support their own ridiculous claims, two hundred years ago in Alice In Wonderland.

Martin Gardner, the leading skeptic, wrote about this, at length, in his book "The Annotated Alice (1960)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annotated_Alice


"“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Humptydumpty_tenniel.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby OutOfBreath » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:47 pm

I'll post this here too, as relevant to the persistent "dark side of the right" in the US.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/m ... ebook.com/

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:11 am

OutOfBreath wrote:You are trying to appropriate a general term with centuries of baggage (the right), and try to make it be a very narrow definition you are making up to suit your minority position on the right.

No, I am trying to give some semblance of semantic coherency to terms (“Left” and “Right”) that have both been turned into conceptual dumping grounds for all sorts of unrelated and often incompatible ideas. The meanings I propose are not narrow at all; they each consist of a set of four broad yet clear underlying beliefs, with each set being both internally consistent and meaningfully distinct from the other set.
To say that my definitions are made up to suit my “minority position” on the Right shows, at best, a complete lack of understanding about what I’m doing here. My definitions encompass many “minority positions” on the Right (and Left) by assessing them against both sets of core beliefs. What I am trying to do here is build a clear coherent framework with which the ideological affinities (or lack thereof) between different groups and people can be meaningfully assessed and categorized.

Thus you can wave away large tracts of the right-wing by claiming they are not "right" enough according to your peculiar standards.

No, what it allows me to do is show that certain groups and people who tend to be (mis)labelled as “Right” actually have more in common ideologically with those typically regarded as being on the Left, both now and at the time.

It would seem to me you would be much better served by using a term like "libertarianism" or "anarcho-capitalism" to describe your position. If you are sincere in your anti-authoritarianism (meaning how authoritarian is usually understood, not as a synonym for "the left"), you have those choices at least. You could even throw in "classical liberalism" into the mix of choices. I refer again to my before-posted chart as a Reference for specific ideologies and tendencies.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if people just eschewed using “Left” and “Right” altogether and instead used more specific and accurate terms like “libertarian” and “socialist”. Unfortunately this is not likely to happen any time soon. So if we’re going to insist on using a couple of terms which really have no business being used outside of discussions about late-18th/early-19th century France, then we should at least attach meanings to them that are clear, consistent, and relevant.

Btw I don’t see why you are again referring me to the seriously flawed chart you posted, especially since it’s clearly based on the idea that Left and Right are about economic policy (as opposed to being about attitudes towards traditionalism, nationalism, and racism like you suggest).

I do get a feeling however, in your Trump-fandom, that you have no problem with right-wing authoritarianism, especially since you seem to be under the delusion that only "the left" can be authoritarian.

1) I am not saying that only those who are generally on the Left can be authoritarian. I am saying that authoritarianism is naturally consistent with the core beliefs of the Left.
2) I did an analysis of Donald Trump according to my Left-Right paradigm earlier in this thread, and that analysis showed him to be a Centrist who leans Right.
3) How exactly is Donald Trump an authoritarian anyway?? Saying unkind things about his political opponents and getting his entirely lawful Executive Orders repeatedly shut down by activist Federal Court judges hardly makes him an “authoritarian”!

You borrow the more or less coherent points that anarcho-capitalists can make(legalistic and naive they may be), but somehow work that into support for Trump, which is as much anathema to such a position as, say left-leaning democrats. (aka conservatives in the rest of the world).

As I already noted at the start of this thread, anarcho-capitalism only occupies a small fringe part of the Right side of the political spectrum according to my framework. Though they may take the core beliefs of the Right to their logical extreme, they are certainly not the only ideological group who can or do hold the core beliefs of the Right in high regard. I support The Donald not because he is anarcho-capitalist or Far-Right (he’s neither), but because his policies are considerably more compatible with the core beliefs of the Right than those of any Left-leaning Democrat (e.g. Bernie Sanders, who could only be considered conservative if your “Center” lies somewhere in the vicinity of Trotsky).

If you wanna own "right-wing", fine.

What I want is for it to not be a descriptively useless term. What I want is for it to not be a means of Poisoning The Well by lumping a person or group into the same categorical box as those with whom they have little in common ideologically and/or significant ideological incompatibilities.

But then you'll have to eat the authoritarianism of tradition and religion

Fine, I’ll “eat” the authoritarianism of tradition and religion, but only to the extent that it doesn’t involve using the power of the State to impose such authoritarianism.

with side dishes of nationalism and fear of "strangers" of varying hues. That's perhaps the historically most defining traits of "right-wing", no matter what peculiarities various smallish groups on the american right might come up with.

BS. As I have pointed out multiple times now, nationalism and racism are no less at home amongst those the Left than they are amongst those on the Right.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:19 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I've tried to explain this (I think we all have) but Venerable insists that his definition is the only correct definition, which, is, of course, not the case.


No, what I’m insisting is that my definitions are far more robust than the non-definitions used by the establishment media and people like yourself.

The Right and Left meant different things in different eras.

And yet the very fact that the terms are used across multiple eras indicates that they do or at least should refer to some particular set of common underlying ideological qualities which transcend any and all particular eras.

While the "Right" in the US of this time is staunchly against government interference the "Right" (especially in Europe) at different times was not. I posted two articles about Czarist and German governments both subsidizing and meddling in industry because at that time industry, especially the arms and transportation industry, were considered strategic assets.
Both governments were "Right-Wing" (though properly I think we should call them "Conservative").

You have not established that the German and Czarist governments were “Right-wing”. They may or may not have called themselves Right-wing, but it’s easy to call yourself “Right-wing” when you’re standing next to Lenin.

Trying to shoehorn different eras into modern definitions is a mistake.

No, the mistake is to try and shoehorn groups from different eras into the same categories when you have already declared those categories to have no historical consistency of meaning.

I have no issue with Venerable attempting to define modern movements as "Right" or "Left" (though his obvious biases make his definitions suspect) but the best thing for him would be to drop the historical comparisons because they simply do not fit.

Care to point out these “obvious biases” and how they compromise my argument? The historical comparison is already inherent in the terms themselves; the only ways to avoid historical comparisons are to either agree on time-independent definitions of the terms, or to abandon the terms altogether. But of course, too many people are far too fond of using “Right-wing” and “Far-Right” as ad-hominem slurs for the latter course of action to ever be realistic.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8386
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:04 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:I've tried to explain this (I think we all have) but Venerable insists that his definition is the only correct definition, which, is, of course, not the case.

No, what I’m insisting is that my definitions are far more robust than the non-definitions used by the establishment media and people like yourself.


:lol:
No, not biased at all.
Tell me, what do you mean by "people like yourself?" I'm interested to see what label you've assigned me.

"Establishment media."
Hhhhhhmmmm, where have I heard that before?

The Right and Left meant different things in different eras.
And yet the very fact that the terms are used across multiple eras indicates that they do or at least should refer to some particular set of common underlying ideological qualities which transcend any and all particular eras.


You are right, they should.
I'm not claiming everything you've said is wrong. What I am saying is that along with certain traditional values we could claim for the "Right" (I'm not altogether comfortable with term but for the sake of argument I'll continue to use it) different eras imposed certain realities that don't necessarily fit your absolutes.
For example, your insistence that the "Right" is against big government and meddling in the free market system. I'm OK with that as it pertains to the "Right" as it exists in the United States in the 21st Century (and the 20th, for that matter). But it does not fit the "Right" at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th Century.

While the "Right" in the US of this time is staunchly against government interference the "Right" (especially in Europe) at different times was not. I posted two articles about Czarist and German governments both subsidizing and meddling in industry because at that time industry, especially the arms and transportation industry, were considered strategic assets.
Both governments were "Right-Wing" (though properly I think we should call them "Conservative").
You have not established that the German and Czarist governments were “Right-wing”. They may or may not have called themselves Right-wing, but it’s easy to call yourself “Right-wing” when you’re standing next to Lenin.


I'm sorry, what? Could you explain yourself a little better?


Trying to shoehorn different eras into modern definitions is a mistake.
No, the mistake is to try and shoehorn groups from different eras into the same categories when you have already declared those categories to have no historical consistency of meaning.


No, the reality is that political definitions are fluid.


I have no issue with Venerable attempting to define modern movements as "Right" or "Left" (though his obvious biases make his definitions suspect) but the best thing for him would be to drop the historical comparisons because they simply do not fit.
Care to point out these “obvious biases” and how they compromise my argument?


:shock:

Sorry, I had it wrong. So, you don't dislike Muslims and liberals?

The historical comparison is already inherent in the terms themselves; the only ways to avoid historical comparisons are to either agree on time-independent definitions of the terms, or to abandon the terms altogether.


No, what you need to do is confine yourself to what the term means today instead of applying it to historical eras you know nothing about.

But of course, too many people are far too fond of using “Right-wing” and “Far-Right” as ad-hominem slurs for the latter course of action to ever be realistic.



Oh, poor you. I'm so sorry if you feel the "Right" is unfairly maligned.
‘I have not left anybody in the dark about the fact that this time, millions of adult men would not die, and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not be burnt or bombed to death in the cities, without the actual culprit, albeit by more humane means, having to pay for his guilt.’
Adolf Hitler
Final Will and Testament

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21637
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:19 pm

Kwunt still at it?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8386
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:40 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Kwunt still at it?



Yup.
‘I have not left anybody in the dark about the fact that this time, millions of adult men would not die, and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not be burnt or bombed to death in the cities, without the actual culprit, albeit by more humane means, having to pay for his guilt.’
Adolf Hitler
Final Will and Testament

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11134
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:08 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Kwunt still at it?



Yup.


How right you are.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22572
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:09 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Kwunt still at it?



Yup.


How right you are.

That left me chuckling.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28348
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:07 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Kwunt still at it?


He belongs to an extremist group that states that Islam is fundamentally evil and Islam uses the political left to achieve their goals. The group was designated a hate group by the SPLC. You will find their members posting essays on science and political forums to get attention.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/04/a ... -talk.html
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/robe ... ng-america


The group became very pro-Trump when Trump said he would ban Muslims and spammed pro-Trump propaganda on conventional forums.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/com ... he_donald/

You will find their members pretending to be from countries other than the USA and actually setting up false flagged "Islamic incidents" to complain about. Here is a member, who got caught, pretending to be an Australian.

"FBI says 'Australian IS jihadist' is actually a Jewish American troll named Joshua Ryne Goldberg."
"Investigations by the AFP in June 2015 established no initial threat to the Australian community. When investigations determined it was likely the person responsible for these threats was based in the United States, the investigation became the jurisdiction of the FBI, with the AFP in a support role."

(Goldberg was found mentally incompetent to stand trial in 2016, but has another hearing in mid 2017. Australia caught another of these blokes last week, doing the same thing, this time from Israel)

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australi ... jk852.html

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:15 am

"Ends justifies the means" BS then.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28348
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:53 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:"Ends justifies the means" BS then.

Well an American pretending to be an Australian claiming liberal newspapers are "fake news" does seem to be a bit of a contradiction. :D

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Cadmusteeth » Mon May 01, 2017 3:56 pm

Hypocrisy is what it is.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11134
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon May 01, 2017 9:28 pm

People diss hypocrisy, but do you have any idea how hard it is to be an {!#%@} without being a hypocrite?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3955
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue May 02, 2017 5:32 am

Being a hypocrite is underrated.
"I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to."
- Willard Gaylin

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21637
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Being a hypocrite is underrated.

Hyperbole is wildly underrated.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3955
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue May 02, 2017 11:02 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Being a hypocrite is underrated.

Hyperbole is wildly underrated.



I prefer hypocrisy to dogmatism:
even if I occasionally indulge in the odd murder of my fellow beings, I much prefer that others don't kill without very good reason. I know this is not very Kantian of me, but it beats the alternative of granting everyone a free pass for their killing spree, just because I myself am not innocent in that regard.
By holding others to higher standards than we do ourselves, at least some standards are being defined and defended (though, granted, not necessarily very effectively).
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Wed May 03, 2017 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to."
- Willard Gaylin

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21637
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 02, 2017 11:26 am

I'm in the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" camp myself.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Cadmusteeth » Tue May 02, 2017 2:04 pm

Point well taken.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Fab Yolis » Fri May 05, 2017 5:15 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:No, what I’m insisting is that my definitions are far more robust than the non-definitions used by the establishment media and people like yourself.

Tell me, what do you mean by "people like yourself?"


People who use "Far-Right" as a one-size-fits-all snarl-word without any clear coherent conception of what "Right-wing" and "Far-Right" mean.


What I am saying is that along with certain traditional values we could claim for the "Right" (I'm not altogether comfortable with term but for the sake of argument I'll continue to use it) different eras imposed certain realities that don't necessarily fit your absolutes.


I have openly admitted that certain "realities" don't fit into my Left-Right schema. I have also said that this can happen because certain realities 1) have been exhibited both by those who are typically regarded as Left-wing and those who are typically regarded as Right-wing, and 2) are not inherently compatible with, or contradictory to, Left-wing or Right-wing thought. What I am trying to do here is synthesize some clear fundamental meaningful distinctions which are useful for categorizing and understanding political movements; if that means certain ideologically and historically ambiguous "realities" are not encompassed by my schema, then so be it.

For example, your insistence that the "Right" is against big government and meddling in the free market system. I'm OK with that as it pertains to the "Right" as it exists in the United States in the 21st Century (and the 20th, for that matter). But it does not fit the "Right" at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th Century.


The small government, free-market mindset goes back well before the 20th Century and can trace many of its ideological roots directly to Europe. To claim this mindset was not "the Right" because something else was deemed to be "the Right" (by who, and how?) during a certain time period makes about as much sense as saying that homosexuals didn't exist in the 19th century because the word "gay" had a completely different meaning back then.

While the "Right" in the US of this time is staunchly against government interference the "Right" (especially in Europe) at different times was not. I posted two articles about Czarist and German governments both subsidizing and meddling in industry because at that time industry, especially the arms and transportation industry, were considered strategic assets.


How many times and ways do I have to say it Jeff: The positions of a government's policies on the political spectrum determine that government's overall position on the spectrum, not vice-versa!

Both governments were "Right-Wing"


Says who?? And by what rationale?

You have not established that the German and Czarist governments were “Right-wing”. They may or may not have called themselves Right-wing, but it’s easy to call yourself “Right-wing” when you’re standing next to Lenin.


I'm sorry, what? Could you explain yourself a little better?


I can, but I'd rather not spell every single thing out for you. It's really not at all hard to figure out Jeff, I promise.


Trying to shoehorn different eras into modern definitions is a mistake.

No, the mistake is to try and shoehorn groups from different eras into the same categories when you have already declared those categories to have no historical consistency of meaning.


No, the reality is that political definitions are fluid.


Definitions can only become so "fluid" before they cease to be definitions altogether. Again, there must be *some* common fundamental characteristics which underlie the terms "Left" and "Right" independent of historical and geographical context, otherwise the terms have no business being part of the contemporary lexicon. The point of my definition schema is to identify those common fundamental features.


I have no issue with Venerable attempting to define modern movements as "Right" or "Left" (though his obvious biases make his definitions suspect) but the best thing for him would be to drop the historical comparisons because they simply do not fit.

Care to point out these “obvious biases” and how they compromise my argument?


:shock:

Sorry, I had it wrong. So, you don't dislike Muslims and liberals?


I don't dislike Muslims unless they actively desire to kill and oppress others because of their (Islamic) ideology. For the most part I pity Muslims, especially Muslim children and women, because they are stuck in the prison of fear and mind control known as Islam. I don't dislike actual liberals (as opposed to the fake kind of "liberal" who is really a socialist).

So even if I have biases, how exactly do they compromise my argument? Should we also reject every history book ever written about Nazis by historians who didn't like the Nazis because they were biased against Nazis?

The historical comparison is already inherent in the terms themselves; the only ways to avoid historical comparisons are to either agree on time-independent definitions of the terms, or to abandon the terms altogether.


No, what you need to do is confine yourself to what the term means today instead of applying it to historical eras you know nothing about.


1) I haven't applied it to eras I know nothing about.
2) You're the one who isn't confining yourself to present-day definitions here. The whole point of my schema is that it uses definitions for terms that are consistent with how those terms are contemporarily understood!

But of course, too many people are far too fond of using “Right-wing” and “Far-Right” as ad-hominem slurs for the latter course of action to ever be realistic.



Oh, poor you. I'm so sorry if you feel the "Right" is unfairly maligned.



I appreciate your sympathy. To be fair though, it's not the only reason the terms aren't going away any time soon. Another reason is the strong human tendency towards binary thinking. Rather than try to fight against this tendency, I would prefer to work with it and ensure that we at least use sensible binaries.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests