Who is on your ignore list?

I think the only people that were on my ignore list for a time were annoying McGregor supporters..
 
Centralizing of power isn't strictly left-wing. Unlike you I don't view power centralization as necessarily bad. Can you even try to be honest?

Today its especially a left wing agenda, as per your "its not so bad" comment.

I think its painful for you to imagine me to be anything but especially congruent and otherwise straightforward, because I'm betting a few of my points have rung home.

And yes centralized power is necessarily bad because its always abused and grown. That's easy to see considering that its effects are more addictive than cocaine. Don't get me wrong though. I'm OK with you being willing to give up some of your own agency and decision making to someone else, but the hell with you trying to impose any of that on me.
 
Today its especially a left wing agenda, as per your "its not so bad" comment.
No it isn't especially a left win agenda. You just have your own personal definitions of things that are divorced from reality. Words have meanings separate from you. Monarchies are, by definition, right-wing. Many recent dictatorships have been right-wing (some contemporary ones too).


I think its painful for you to imagine me to be anything but especially congruent and otherwise straightforward, because I'm betting a few of my points have rung home.
No, you're just annoying because you post stupid shit, get called on it, back-peddle, then you lie, then you change the argument. It's frustrating because I don't think you're actually stupid.

And yes centralized power is necessarily bad because its always abused and grown. That's easy to see considering that its effects are more addictive than cocaine. Don't get me wrong though. I'm OK with you being willing to give up some of your own agency and decision making to someone else, but the hell with you trying to impose any of that on me.
This is an opinion, not a fact.
 
No it isn't especially a left win agenda. You just have your own personal definitions of things that are divorced from reality. Words have meanings separate from you. Monarchies are, by definition, right-wing. Many recent dictatorships have been right-wing (some contemporary ones too).

This is an opinion, not a fact.

How do you figure?

Anyway, in your last quoted section the top two statements were demonstrable facts.
 
hi all,

this is a long thread, and i haven't had the time to slog past the first few pages of it, but a poster (i think it was AnungUnRama) mentioned that SouthoftheAndes should win the award for "biggest flip flop".

i don't know if such an award exists, but if it does, SOA should be a lock for it.

i'd also comfortably nominate SOA as the biggest troll in the War Room.

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
How do you figure?

Anyway, in your last quoted section the top two statements were demonstrable facts.

There's nothing to figure. It's not a conclusion, it's a definition. If you know anything at all about the idea of a left-right spectrum or its history, you know that.
 
There's nothing to figure. It's not a conclusion, it's a definition. If you know anything at all about the idea of a left-right spectrum or its history, you know that.

Then that's just tautological. Right wingers are monarchs because are monarchies are right wing?

That's a classic centralization of power, of which Umpa has just admitted to support per his "its not all so bad" comment with respect to centralization. That must mean he's a rightwinger and I'm actually left of him... and you?
 
Then that's just tautological. Right wingers are monarchs because are monarchies are right wing?

Don't tell me you don't know what a definition is.

And FYI, we start with the fact that a constitutional democracy is "left" and monarchies are "right" and move from there to trying to understanding what "left" and "right" mean with regard to philosophy.

That's a classic centralization of power, of which Umpa has just admitted to support per his "its not all so bad" comment with respect to centralization. That must mean he's a rightwinger and I'm actually left of him... and you?

Centralization isn't an issue that relates to the political spectrum.
 
Don't tell me you don't know what a definition is.

And FYI, we start with the fact that a constitutional democracy is "left" and monarchies are "right" and move from there to trying to understanding what "left" and "right" mean with regard to philosophy.

Centralization isn't an issue that relates to the political spectrum.

Just pointing out that you don't know the definition. Its obvious because the definition you provided was tautological.

And excuse you? Centralization doesn't relate to what?? Without deflecting with tautology this time how do you figure centralization of power doesn't relate to the political spectrum? What are the arguments along that spectrum over if they're not about how much or what power to grant to government?
 
Just pointing out that you don't know the definition. Its obvious because the definition you provided was tautological.

And excuse you? Centralization doesn't relate to what?? Without deflecting with tautology this time how do you figure centralization of power doesn't relate to the political spectrum? What are the arguments along that spectrum over if they're not about how much or what power to grant to government?
The point is that support for centralization and decentralization is not a major factor distinguishing the left-right spectrum. On the left there are socialists who support the centralization of power in the hands of a centrally planned state run economy. There are also anarchists who see the state as an inherently flawed actor and are inherently skeptical of centralized power but are egalitarian and don't believe in private property.

On the right there are many people who support the power of the central state. As mentioned above, slave owners supported it in the form of the Fugitive Slave Act. They support it when it comes to drug policy as well as on farm subsidies and expansion of the military. Then there are an-caps like you who don't support the state like leftist anarchists but are also radically pro-free market.
 
I know its not tautological. Why don't you let Umpa defend his point? He doesn't tend to need sophistry to make it.

I'm not stopping him, but you have to admit that it's pretty funny that someone doesn't know the definition of "definition."
 
On the right there are many people who support the power of the central state. As mentioned above, slave owners supported it in the form of the Fugitive Slave Act.

You could also mention the same thing Upa did, but if Greoric is denying that monarchy is a right-wing ideology, what's the point? He's speaking his own private language and then equivocating.
 
You could also mention the same thing Upa did, but if Greoric is denying that monarchy is a right-wing ideology, what's the point? He's speaking his own private language and then equivocating.
I see you guys talking past each other so I hoped maybe I could clarify things a bit more if possible. I feel like I've had a similar discussion with @Greoric before though...
 
The point is that support for centralization and decentralization is not a major factor distinguishing the left-right spectrum. On the left there are socialists who support the centralization of power in the hands of a centrally planned state run economy. There are also anarchists who see the state as an inherently flawed actor and are inherently skeptical of centralized power but are egalitarian and don't believe in private property.

On the right there are many people who support the power of the central state. As mentioned above, slave owners supported it in the form of the Fugitive Slave Act. They support it when it comes to drug policy as well as on farm subsidies and expansion of the military. Then there are an-caps like you who don't support the state like leftist anarchists but are also radically pro-free market.

The left leaning anarchists want a totalitarian state before they want to achieve statelessness. In that respect, they're the epitome of centralization.

As for the right, sure they want some policies of centralized power, but on a sliding scale and in toto they want more decentralization than activists to their left. That's why its a spectrum. At one end, you have someone like me that wants complete decentralized power and equal rights. Further to the left you have a neo-con like @Fedorable. Then you. Then someone like Workers United that want's race centered tyranny.
 
The only person on my ignore list is Kardashians or w.e it's name is.
 
I'm not stopping him, but you have to admit that it's pretty funny that someone doesn't know the definition of "definition."

Do definitions apply tautologies? I don't know what translation app you're using, but in English they're usually avoided when asking for clarifications... or definitions.
 
Back
Top