R U Progressive?

[rockfist]

Woodruff does not fit nicely into a label. I would not label him a Liberal. I do not and will not agree with him on everything.

Viper 20% of what the Republican party puts out is utter garbage. 90% of what the Democrat party puts out is utter garbage.

Its a matter of what you value most. I value fiscal Conservativism above any social policies. If it costs money and isn't for a meaningful system of commerce or national defense I oppose it.

[Woodruff]

I consider myself a progressive...

Baby steps. One day, you'll finally admit that you're a liberal.

I consider myself to be somewhat of a social liberal. I am not even remotely a fiscal liberal.

Fair enough. That's how I see it. Though I question your commitment to fiscal conservatism__ but that's not necessarily all on you. Sometimes social liberalism and financial conservatism are competing principles.

That's true that sometimes social liberalism and fiscal conservatism are competing principles...and in those situations, I would make a "choice" based on the individual circumstances as to what position I would support. Again, the idea that someone must be "one or the other" seems ludicrous to me.

[Lootifer]

Isn't a progressive, in the context of this website, someone who is sympathetic to government redistribution?

I dont think we quite need Tylers slightly weird take on things (seeing as most of it isn't relevant).

[Woodruff]

Woodruff does not fit nicely into a label.

I consider that a high compliment - thank you.

I do not and will not agree with him on everything.

But I'm clearly the smartest guy in the room! <grin> I don't believe I've ever met anyone who agrees with me on everything, and I'm not sure what I would think if I did.

Viper 20% of what the Republican party puts out is utter garbage. 90% of what the Democrat party puts out is utter garbage.

I would put it as more 90% for both, to be honest.

Its a matter of what you value most. I value fiscal Conservativism above any social policies. If it costs money and isn't for a meaningful system of commerce or national defense I oppose it.

See, I don't like hardline positions like that. I like to view each situation independently. I probably TEND to view social issues as more important than fiscal issues, but it will always depend on the specifics involved.

[Night Strike]

Historically, the "Progressive Era" is considered to have ended at World War I. As to a definition, progressivism (forward thinking) in the United States is a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics. In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice.[1] Social progressivism, the view that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

And finally...Would you consider it fair for me to point at certain historical Christians and state that's what Christians are? Because I promise you...it will look a lot worse than your view of "progressives" if I do. Are you really so unable to remove yourself from historical definitions in order to deal with today's reality, or is it just so very convenient for you not to do so?

Except I don't claim to be like the Christian government (because that's what they were at that time) of the middle ages. Heck, that whole period was dominated by the Catholic church and their beliefs and teachings, which are mostly things that I don't subscribe to. However, when it comes to today's progressives, some of the current ones, like Hillary Clinton, clearly and definitively refer to themselves as modern progressives similar to those progressives of the early 20th century. If I can't compare the two groups (according to you), then why can they compare themselves to the past group? The better question is, if they are comparing themselves to progressives of the past, why can't we look to see the policies and beliefs those groups actually supported and passed?

[BigBallinStalin]

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

No. I don't really care if someone labels himself as left-wing.

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.

By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

For clarification, I like using Donald Snow's categories of political stance: radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary. But for conversations focusing on state intervention, I'll use the (classical) liberal v. progressive spectrum.

This may be most relevant to your response (Tommy Sowell puts its so well for me):

A rough summary of the vision of the political left today is that of collective decision-making through government, directed toward-- or at least rationalized by-- the goal of reducing economic and social inequalities. There may be moderate or extreme versions of the left vision or agenda but, among those designated as "the right," the difference between free market libertarians and military juntas is not simply one of degree in pursuing a common vision, because there is no common vision among these and other disparate groups opposed to the left-- which is to say, there is no such definable thing as "the right," though there are various segments of that omnibus category, such as free market advocates, who can be defined.

Intellectuals and Society, p 91

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't a progressive, in the context of this website, someone who is sympathetic to government redistribution?

I dont think we quite need Tylers slightly weird take on things (seeing as most of it isn't relevant).

I want to say "Yes," but it might depend on the reasoning behind the "government redistribution," so being more specific would help.

Extreme progressives are at odds with extreme classical liberals, free market libertarians, liberal constitutionalists, etc.

[Lootifer]

Isn't a progressive, in the context of this website, someone who is sympathetic to government redistribution?

I dont think we quite need Tylers slightly weird take on things (seeing as most of it isn't relevant).

I want to say "Yes," but it might depend on the reasoning behind the "government redistribution," so being more specific would help.

Extreme progressives are at odds with extreme classical liberals, free market libertarians, liberal constitutionalists, etc.

Yeh I guess im looking at it from the 4 point compass (Lib/Auth, Left/Right). Extreme progressives are in the top left? So they dont really count (I mean really who is left leaning AND authoritarian... were talking like some of the worst people in history who fall into that category). This board has very few (0?) extreme progressives I would have thought.

[rockfist]

Its a matter of what you value most. I value fiscal Conservativism above any social policies. If it costs money and isn't for a meaningful system of commerce or national defense I oppose it.

See, I don't like hardline positions like that. I like to view each situation independently. I probably TEND to view social issues as more important than fiscal issues, but it will always depend on the specifics involved.

In "normal" circumstances I would agree that hardline positions are not good. I just believe that our current political system and budgetary system is so far beyond what I would deem necessary that a reduction in spending currently trumps everything else. That may change over time.

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't a progressive, in the context of this website, someone who is sympathetic to government redistribution?

I dont think we quite need Tylers slightly weird take on things (seeing as most of it isn't relevant).

I want to say "Yes," but it might depend on the reasoning behind the "government redistribution," so being more specific would help.

Extreme progressives are at odds with extreme classical liberals, free market libertarians, liberal constitutionalists, etc.

Yeh I guess im looking at it from the 4 point compass (Lib/Auth, Left/Right). Extreme progressives are in the top left? So they dont really count (I mean really who is left leaning AND authoritarian... were talking like some of the worst people in history who fall into that category). This board has very few (0?) extreme progressives I would have thought.

Hm. I'd take that 4-point compass and give it to someone else.

Donald Snow has these 5 categories for political stance: radical, liberal, moderate/centrist, conservative, reactionary.
For issues with state intervention, I invoke the "(classical) liberal v. progressive" spectrum.


Radicals tend to implement their ideal end through violence.

Liberals tend to view government as a tool of positive change.

Moderates are kind of like "this is where we're at, so what can we do, given our current constraints." (I guess they tend not to be too idealistic).

Conservatives tend to distrust the government, or adopt a "leave me alone/get off my yard" attitude.

Reactionary are guys who want to go back to some previous state. I guess many free market libertarians could be considered reactionaries. During Mao's rule, "reactionary" describe anyone who rejected applied socialism (i.e. Communism) and wanted a previous time where private property was respected slightly more.


(classical) liberal v. progressive
To be way too simple, classical liberal is like "less government; more reliance on human action for problem-solving" and tend to adopt a long-run view; whereas, progressives are like "more government; I want my ideals applied in the short-run because people can't get there quick enough or could never do it quick enough."

[Lootifer]

Its cause all commie hippy such as myself have ants in our pants from sleeping outside

[Phatscotty]

Okay. So, progressives are people who support eugenics, segregation, and governmental control

That is an accurate basic summary, yes. The technology, and political/media/educational strategy has changed, somewhat. Also, the 4 generations or so in the last century have become progressively dumber n dumber, generally speaking. Not sure anyone disagrees with the last part.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, you appear to be talking about a specific political party rather than progressivists in general.

would you vote for someone who would keep everything exactly the same as it is now? because if you want anything of the present changed, then you are a progressivist in that respect

i am not sure why you started talking about forced abortion or slavery, as these sound like very specific examples of the past. i can not think of any current politicians of the world who advocate a return to slavery or eugenics.

they are very specific examples of the past (finally at least someone who does not ignore it). The slavery is no longer on the plantation, simply because the plantation is not a major source of power and wealth and longer.

However, their economic slavery, ideological slavery, and educational slavery is far stronger and more efficient today than it ever was.


And no, I would not vote for someone who would keep everything exactly the same as it is now. I would vote for someone who would give us back our freedoms that everyone knows we have lost and continue to lose year after year.

[Woodruff]

Historically, the "Progressive Era" is considered to have ended at World War I. As to a definition, progressivism (forward thinking) in the United States is a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics. In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice.[1] Social progressivism, the view that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

And finally...Would you consider it fair for me to point at certain historical Christians and state that's what Christians are? Because I promise you...it will look a lot worse than your view of "progressives" if I do. Are you really so unable to remove yourself from historical definitions in order to deal with today's reality, or is it just so very convenient for you not to do so?

Except I don't claim to be like the Christian government (because that's what they were at that time) of the middle ages. Heck, that whole period was dominated by the Catholic church and their beliefs and teachings, which are mostly things that I don't subscribe to.

And I don't claim to be like the Progessives of that time, nor do I subscribe to many of their beliefs and teachings. So are you done avoiding my question, or were you going to answer it?

However, when it comes to today's progressives, some of the current ones, like Hillary Clinton, clearly and definitively refer to themselves as modern progressives similar to those progressives of the early 20th century.

Hillary Clinton used the phrase "similar to those progressives of the early 20th century", did she? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a quote. Or, alternatively, you could point out where she wanted to de-segregate the military or go back to slavery...got a quote for that?
Yeah...I didn't think so.

[Woodruff]

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

No. I don't really care if someone labels himself as left-wing.

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.
By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

This isn't a difficult concept, unless you're trying to avoid the reality of it. You state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. Yet, you use the term "left-wing", while simultaneously attempting to claim that it's not meant in a pejorative sense. You can't have it both ways. Either you're being dishonest with yourself, you're lying or you made a stupid claim that you now realize wasn't accurate (which you should probably admit now).

[Woodruff]

Okay. So, progressives are people who support eugenics, segregation, and governmental control

That is an accurate basic summary, yes.

That's an idiotic summary that only an utter moron would agree with.

Also, the 4 generations or so in the last century have become progressively dumber n dumber, generally speaking. Not sure anyone disagrees with the last part.

You'd be the expert on that.

[Night Strike]

Hillary Clinton used the phrase "similar to those progressives of the early 20th century", did she? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a quote. Or, alternatively, you could point out where she wanted to de-segregate the military or go back to slavery...got a quote for that?
Yeah...I didn't think so.

So the video I posted on Page 2 of this thread where Hillary said that she prefers to call herself a Progressive, which has its roots in the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century doesn't count as a quote?

SHE'S the one who linked herself to that movement, not me. All I've done (actually, mostly others have done, I'm just sharing it here) is point out what the progressives of the Progressive Era actually believed and did.

[Woodruff]

Hillary Clinton used the phrase "similar to those progressives of the early 20th century", did she? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a quote. Or, alternatively, you could point out where she wanted to de-segregate the military or go back to slavery...got a quote for that?
Yeah...I didn't think so.

So the video I posted on Page 2 of this thread where Hillary said that she prefers to call herself a Progressive, which has its roots in the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century doesn't count as a quote?
SHE'S the one who linked herself to that movement, not me. All I've done (actually, mostly others have done, I'm just sharing it here) is point out what the progressives of the Progressive Era actually believed and did.

She "linked herself to that movement" in precisely the same way that you are, through your Christianity, linked to the many problems of the Catholic Church. Seriously..."which has it's roots in the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century" is simply making the point that's when the concept of progressivism started. I think everyone here is aware of that. I'm sorry that your dishonesty can't twist that into Hillary Clinton being an evil segregationist and slave-owner, but I'm not going to let you do that.

[BigBallinStalin]

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.
By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

This isn't a difficult concept, unless you're trying to avoid the reality of it. You state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. Yet, you use the term "left-wing", while simultaneously attempting to claim that it's not meant in a pejorative sense. You can't have it both ways. .

Pejorative? As in "Pejoratives[1] (or terms of abuse, derogatory terms), including name slurs,[2] are words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste (wiki)"? I didn't state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. "Not liking" certain ideologies and then lumping them into "the right" doesn't mean to me that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. It's a descriptive term formed erroneously by lumping different ideologies into an incoherent mass of divergent political visions.\

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

Either you're being dishonest with yourself, you're lying or you made a stupid claim that you now realize wasn't accurate (which you should probably admit now)

Or we have yet to reach mutual understanding, which I think is what's happening.

Maybe this is why we keep going back and forth:

The term "right-wing" encompasses many different ideologies, which the left-wing does not want to be associated with, i.e. they'd prefer not to; as in, they do not like "Theocracy, Monarhcy, etc.," so why not lump those into "right-wing"? One can't explain "the left" without describing its opposite, "the right."

Here's what you said earlier:

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.[/

Since this post, you've led yourself astray.

I've already explained my response to this, but here's my answer in a nutshell as expressed by Thomas Sowell:

A rough summary of the vision of the political left today is that of collective decision-making through government, directed toward-- or at least rationalized by-- the goal of reducing economic and social inequalities. There may be moderate or extreme versions of the left vision or agenda but, among those designated as "the right," the difference between free market libertarians and military juntas is not simply one of degree in pursuing a common vision, because there is no common vision among these and other disparate groups opposed to the left-- which is to say, there is no such definable thing as "the right," though there are various segments of that omnibus category, such as free market advocates, who can be defined.

Intellectuals and Society, p 91

[Woodruff]

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

It's irrelevant. You're using the exact same term (left-wing vice right-wing), yet trying to claim that your use of it was not meant as a pejorative, but that the use of right-wing is.

Either you're being dishonest with yourself, you're lying or you made a stupid claim that you now realize wasn't accurate (which you should probably admit now)

Or we have yet to reach mutual understanding, which I think is what's happening.

It seems to me that the most common way you "reach mutual understanding" with someone is to have the other person give up and agree with you. It's fascinating how you're trying to dodge this very simple thing.

Maybe this is why we keep going back and forth:
The term "right-wing" encompasses many different ideologies, which the left-wing does not want to be associated with, i.e. they'd prefer not to; as in, they do not like "Theocracy, Monarhcy, etc.," so why not lump those into "right-wing"? One can't explain "the left" without describing its opposite, "the right."

So? That does nothing to counter my point.

I've already explained my response to this, but here's my answer in a nutshell as expressed by Thomas Sowell:

I don't give a flying f*ck what Thomas Sowell says on the issue. And I've not at all led myself astray. You're nothing but a windbag who won't admit when they've made a stupid statement. It's really sad, because I used to consider you a fairly straightforward individual like thegreekdog. But lately, it's become clear that you're much more like saxitoxin.

[BigBallinStalin]

lolwut

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

It's irrelevant. You're using the exact same term (left-wing vice right-wing), yet trying to claim that your use of it was not meant as a pejorative, but that the use of right-wing is.

No, I'm not. Where do I say that one is pejorative and the other isn't? What do you think pejorative means?

I've been saying that "right-wing" is an inaccurate term; it's formed by lumping whatever is the opposite of "left-wing" because whatever the left-wing doesn't like (as in, "don't want in their group," or "prefer not to be associated with"), they'll place into the right-wing, hence free market libertarians, monarchies, theocrats, conservatives, and Republicans all exist in one group. That doesn't make sense given that those groups lack a common vision; whereas, the groups within "left-wing" generally have a common vision. There's nothing pejorative with that explanation. I'm not making any normative judgments here. But it seems to me that you are; you're "putting words in my mouth."

I haven't been able to follow your logic because it doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry, Woodruff. I'm not out to get you. This isn't a sax-attack, or TPDS operation. You're just not making sense.

[Woodruff]

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

It's irrelevant. You're using the exact same term (left-wing vice right-wing), yet trying to claim that your use of it was not meant as a pejorative, but that the use of right-wing is.

No, I'm not. Where do I say that one is pejorative and the other isn't?

Either last page, or the page before. It's at least quoted on the last page.

What do you think pejorative means?

You defined it earlier. At any rate, if you don't like "pejorative", let's just go with "negative connotations" then.

I haven't been able to follow your logic because it doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry, Woodruff. I'm not out to get you. This isn't a sax-attack, or TPDS operation. You're just not making sense.

You're using the term "left-wing" while positing that the use of "right-wing" is done with intentional negative connotations and claiming that's not what you're doing with your use of "left-wing". Your inconsistency is my point. Well, it was my original point...now it's come down to more of your unwillingness to admit that you made a dumb statement.

[BigBallinStalin]

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

It's irrelevant. You're using the exact same term (left-wing vice right-wing), yet trying to claim that your use of it was not meant as a pejorative, but that the use of right-wing is.

No, I'm not. Where do I say that one is pejorative and the other isn't?

Either last page, or the page before. It's at least quoted on the last page.

This? "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

OH MY, IT'S PEJORATIVE!

No, that doesn't fly. I already explained earlier; you just keep repeating your mantra without actually explaining how that is pejorative, but but but don't use "pejorative," you recently switched to "negative connotations."

Was it this string of replies?

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.
By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

This isn't a difficult concept, unless you're trying to avoid the reality of it. You state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. Yet, you use the term "left-wing", while simultaneously attempting to claim that it's not meant in a pejorative sense. You can't have it both ways. .

Pejorative? As in "Pejoratives[1] (or terms of abuse, derogatory terms), including name slurs,[2] are words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste (wiki)"? I didn't state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. [u] "Not liking" certain ideologies and then lumping them into "the right" doesn't mean to me that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative.[/u] It's a descriptive term formed erroneously by lumping different ideologies into an incoherent mass of divergent political visions.

You ignored this response. Read the underlined. Please explain how that's wrong. (YOu haven't though, you just keep flipping your position, changing "pejorative" to "negative connotations" and blah blah blah.

What do you think pejorative means?

You defined it earlier. At any rate, if you don't like "pejorative", let's just go with "negative connotations" then.

Ah, so we moved from "pejorative" to "negative connotations." Talk about inconsistency! Care to make your accusations any broader before we continue?


Again.... I've been saying that "right-wing" is an inaccurate term; it's formed by lumping whatever is the opposite of "left-wing" because whatever the left-wing doesn't like (as in, "don't want in their group," or "prefer not to be associated with"), they'll place into the right-wing, hence free market libertarians, monarchies, theocrats, conservatives, and Republicans all exist in one group. That doesn't make sense given that those groups lack a common vision; whereas, the groups within "left-wing" generally have a common vision. There's nothing pejorative with that explanation. I'm not making any normative judgments here. But it seems to me that you are; you're "putting words in my mouth."

So, you'll have to explain how the underlined is false in order for your position to make any sense.

I haven't been able to follow your logic because it doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry, Woodruff. I'm not out to get you. This isn't a sax-attack, or TPDS operation. You're just not making sense.

You're using the term "left-wing" while positing that the use of "right-wing" is done with intentional negative connotations and claiming that's not what you're doing with your use of "left-wing". Your inconsistency is my point. Well, it was my original point...now it's come down to more of your unwillingness to admit that you made a dumb statement.

You haven't explained how this is true. You simply keep repeating it ad infinitum without explaining how this actually applies to what I've been saying (see underlined above). Here's your logic from earlier:

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

No. I don't really care if someone labels himself as left-wing.

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.

By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

For clarification, I like using Donald Snow's categories of political stance: radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary. But for conversations focusing on state intervention, I'll use the (classical) liberal v. progressive spectrum.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=164454&start=90#p3593834



Why is your position false? Let's copy-paste your logic for your convenience:

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like [true]. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it[False; because that isn't the case. I already explained how the use of "left-wing" is not "similar in nature." Recall: DIFFERENCE IN IDEOLOGIES and RIGHT-WING HAS NO COMMON VISION AMONG ITS ERRONEOUSLY LABELED POLITICAL SYSTEMS]. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" [Yes, they're opposite, yet the term "left-wing" has something in common among itself; whereas, "right-wing" doesn't--as I've already explained. Remember that Thomas Sowell quote? For FFS, that has almost everything to do with this. You deleted it because it throws a monkey wrench in your Odd Logic]. or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? [What does this mean? My use of "left-wing" or "right-wing" should be excluded from my definition? WAT]. You're being very inconsistent here[lol~! Yes, Woodruff, you've laid your case so clearly, which is why I have to keep explaining the same thing to you while you keep repeating the same mantra.

Maybe that finally settles this. Maybe if I copy-paste the following again, you'll read it:


Again.... I've been saying that "right-wing" is an inaccurate term; it's formed by lumping whatever is the opposite of "left-wing" because whatever the left-wing doesn't like (as in, "don't want in their group," or "prefer not to be associated with"), they'll place into the right-wing, hence free market libertarians, monarchies, theocrats, conservatives, and Republicans all exist in one group. That doesn't make sense given that those groups lack a common vision; whereas, the groups within "left-wing" generally have a common vision. There's nothing pejorative with that explanation. I'm not making any normative judgments here. But it seems to me that you are; you're "putting words in my mouth."

So, you'll have to explain how the underlined is false in order for your position to make any sense. You could also try deleting certain responses in here in order to validate your position, but we already went through that, and now they've resurfaced--waiting to be dealt with your Superior Macho Logic.

[Woodruff]

I give, you've managed to do what I pointed out is your end goal...you've beaten me down with your bullshit to the point that I don't care anymore. Go ahead and claim the victory...go ahead and claim I'm just throwing a hissy fitting and walking off in a pout...I don't care. I won't make the mistake of taking you seriously again.

[Aradhus]

Lol, since the left owns all the media, runs all the universities, writes all the history books and utterly defines the political language in America, it makes sense that they'd label everything they dislike as right wing, and that that label would stick because if there's one thing the left is good at it is advertising and messaging.