Lefty, but no "righty"

[sdbest]

Why do people who use the pejorative term "lefty" to describe liberals, progressives, and socialists not use the term "righty" when talking about those on the right of the political spectrum?

Regards
S.

[LadiesMan217]

It doesn't sound as good.

[Jack]

It sounds like you mean they're right handed, which could still be true, since we all know right-handers are less evolved than left-handers.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Isherwood It sounds like you mean they're right handed, which could still be true, since we all know right-handers are less evolved than left-handers.

That must be it. I'm right handed and it turns out I'm a socialist troll. How evolved can a troll be?

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest That must be it. I'm right handed and it turns out I'm a socialist troll. How evolved can a troll be?

Perhaps it depends on how much one feeds him.

- Rob

[sdbest]

Quote by: Autolykos Perhaps it depends on how much one feeds him. - Rob

Yo! Rob. How we doing on the "first principles" questions I asked you the other day? Anything in the pipe?

Actually, evolution has to do with differential reproductive success not food per se.

I want my answers about first principles.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Yo! Rob. How we doing on the "first principles" questions I asked you the other day? Anything in the pipe? Actually, evolution has to do with differential reproductive success not food per se. I want my answers about first principles.

You understand exactly what I meant. I will not feed you any more here.

Look for my newest response to the "First Principles" thread tomorrow. Patience is a virtue.

- Rob

[rmnunez]

Lefty is appropriately taken as a derogatory epithet since lefties throughout history and around the world have proven to be such complete embarrassements for all humanity with their childlike perception of human nature and history. Politics is a serious business with much at stake and conservatives (the "righties") approach it with the proper mindset, sensible to their limitations and moderating their pursuits for the greater good, nothing embarrassing or infantile in their perspective. If you want a derogatorty term for conservatives, use Chomsky's "plutocracy" (when they are wealthy) or call them brainwashed, duped, manipulated, short-sighted or whatever you think their particular flaw may be. That's the beauty of the "lefty" slur, it covers all the morons holding the idiotic perspective we all need to just talk to each other, generously care and share more. To achieve an similar effect with conservatives you end up applying a term that is apt for only for wealthy elites, international investors, perhaps religious fundamentalists or racial supremacists.

[sdbest]

Quote by: rmnunez Politics is a serious business with much at stake and conservatives (the "righties") approach it with the proper mindset, sensible to their limitations and moderating their pursuits for the greater good, nothing embarrassing or infantile in their perspective.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Roberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Tom DeLay ... need I go on?

Regards
S.

[rmnunez]

I'd suppose you think mere reference to those names ought to be evidence enough of the lack of seriousness with which conservatives regard politics and that none of them would be a good example of sensible limitation or pursuit of any greater good. Objectify these conclusions in a manner I can materially compare them with a better, more sensible and beneficial socialistic alternative.

This lefty-promoted perspective or worldview is like all ideologies, it explains everything and is of universal application -for those who accept its doctrine. For the rest of us, its just another ideology and if we are honest, not quite as valid, soundly-premised or with as much accomplishment, as our own and different perspectives.

It turns out lefty leaders also have clay feet, are just as susceptible to greed and avarice, as covetuous and nepotistic as their conservative counterparts. Power corrupts even the lefty and there’s Chavez front and center to prove it.

My difference with lefty perspectives is in their presumptions on human nature where I don’t see the willingness to share leftism requires. I suspect to share the wealth there will have to be some violence and you never know how far things will go, irreperable harm could result. So I don’t favour this revolutinary socialist crap regardless of what you call it.

The welfare state is a sop. Weak income-redistributing schemes have proven inadequate palliatives to diminish the strength of demands for some sort of adjustment or accomodation, but government services are costly to provide and at some point taxpayers are driven away or lose the capacity to contribute.

In many EU countries which had their defense budgets covered by the US in NATO, governments applied tax revenues first to improving infrastructure and then in a variety of social schemes that provide for the citizens from craddle to grave without regard to race, creed, age, gender, socio-economic background, nationality or ability.

This costs a bundle and in the EU is paid for with taxes, but not everyone has the unique advantages particularly western EUers have enjoyed; they have a lengthy history of fiscalization and public spending, they are relatively wealthy and they did have that US help subsidizing military expenditures for so long.

Now EUers have the closest thing to socialist success in several member states, all much more generous and widespread than any public services in the US and elsewhere. But this comes at a cost, Scandinavian countries have prohibitive taxes and costly regulations. The government is in everything, initiative is stiffled, the hurdles to overcome regulations are becoming insurmountable and the demands on the social system have grown exponentially. Declining birth rates, ageing populations and erosion of productivity signals their impending doom, as they become fraught with problems over immigration and struggle to add another layer of bureaucracy and regulations to the already overburdened taxpayers.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: rmnunez Lefty is appropriately taken as a derogatory epithet since lefties throughout history and around the world have proven to be such complete embarrassements for all humanity with their childlike perception of human nature and history.

You do realise that the vast majority of the leading historians of the modern day and the second half of the 20th century were lefties. Thus your theory that leftists have a childlike perception of history is obviously nothing more than a erroneous slur.

[rmnunez]

I don't see how the fact many leading historians were lefties would make my theory lefties are infantile less true. That the term is a slur is undisputed, but its effect as such depends solely on that offended being able to appreciate the stupidity of leftism.

[sdbest]

rmnuez, you've made assertions of the "stupidity of leftism" and used the EU as an example. However, the quality of life in most "lefty" EU countries for most people far exceeds that in other countries. It seems that it is the "lefty" public policies that, in fact, improve life. Why? Because "leftys" do understand that what works best is a balance between a strong economy with entrepreneurial opportunity supported by a strong social safety net. It's the latter that conservatives have always failed to understand to their and their fellow citizens' detriment.

As social programs grow and become onerous (if not checked) the simplistic assumption is made that the conservative alternative is the answer. As we know from history that turns out never to be the case. Conservatives either overreach and harm their countries or they simply bring social programs more in line with resources, but do not abandon them.

While a very socialist country can function, a pure laissez-faire, conservative one cannot.


Regards
S.

[sdbest]

Quote by: rmnunez This lefty-promoted perspective or worldview is like all ideologies, it explains everything and is of universal application -for those who accept its doctrine. For the rest of us, its just another ideology and if we are honest, not quite as valid, soundly-premised or with as much accomplishment, as our own and different perspectives.

Just so I, at least, can better understand your theory, what "lefty-promoted perspective or worldview" are you, in fact, referring to? Perhaps you could direct me to a publication or declaration that I could access that might state this perspective of which you speak. And, again so that I can better understand your theory, who are "the rest of us"? And lastly, what is "our own and different perspective"?

Once we've progressed passed the generalities and have some specifics with which to consider, maybe we can discover the wisdom of your as yet unspecified ideology and unarticulated theory.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chris said: You do realise that the vast majority of the leading historians of the modern day and the second half of the 20th century were lefties. Thus your theory that leftists have a childlike perception of history is obviously nothing more than a erroneous slur.

RMNunez and SDBest are perfect matches. Both use slurs, labels and generalizations for the bulk of their arguments, so the field is equally soggy and unplayable on both sides.

[rmnunez]

"leftys" do understand that what works best is a balance between a strong economy with entrepreneurial opportunity supported by a strong social safety net. It's the latter that conservatives have always failed to understand to their and their fellow citizens' detriment.

But we don't have any successful examples of these lefty's who can balance that economy and social net. It is a balancing game which for lefties invariably involves simply gutting the military and pouring the savings into whatever social programs. Its attractive until you try and apply it to a major superpower with economic interests to protect around the world.

As social programs grow and become onerous (if not checked) the simplistic assumption is made that the conservative alternative is the answer. As we know from history that turns out never to be the case. Conservatives either overreach and harm their countries or they simply bring social programs more in line with resources, but do not abandon them.

Offer me some examples of leftie leaders curbing excessively growing social programs, if you can. In the US, which led the way on this, charitable assistance became benefits and are now entitlements, which are far more extensive, costly and of easier eligibility than they were originally -the same is true in every country which emulated the early US example.

The "lefty worldview" is a combination of Marxism with a bunch of derived socialist and generally anti-establishment ideologies as espoused by such notable lefties as Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao, as well as whatever lesser notables are prefered (Castro, Guevara, Chavez or whatever other 'revolutionaries'). "Lefty" is a generic term, it applies to a variety of more or less socialistic perspectives and brings together a plurality with very different priorities, but a common socialist premise.

Though there are a variety of different shades of leftism, each with its own merits, none of them is solid enough to represent a viable alternative, which is why they tend to group together for strength. Some are more concerned with the environment, gender, labor, ethnic or some other issue, but they see their 'struggle' better furthered casting their lot together against the 'establishment' which each reads into the root of their 'cause'.

Often lefties feel they are unfairly grouped in some collectively dismissed bunch and want to expound on the particularly meritorious aspects of their ideology. Unfortunately they can't seem to limit themselves to the specific differences they have with the more generic leftism and instead tend to echo the same arguments other lefties make (which is why I lump them together).

The rest of us are those not subscribing to as socialistic a perspective, a group lefties generically term "conservatives". The relevant difference here is that we balance the economy and social programs a bit closer to the center than the lefties would like.

[shawmutt]

In these last midterm elections, I tried to coin the word "con" as a word for "righties". I thought it was quite clever, given the recent spate of scandal among conservatives. Sadly it never caught on.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: rmnunez But we don't have any successful examples of these lefty's who can balance that economy and social net. It is a balancing game which for lefties invariably involves simply gutting the military and pouring the savings into whatever social programs. Its attractive until you try and apply it to a major superpower with economic interests to protect around the world. Offer me some examples of leftie leaders curbing excessively growing social programs, if you can. In the US, which led the way on this, charitable assistance became benefits and are now entitlements, which are far more extensive, costly and of easier eligibility than they were originally -the same is true in every country which emulated the early US example. The "lefty worldview" is a combination of Marxism with a bunch of derived socialist and generally anti-establishment ideologies as espoused by such notable lefties as Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao, as well as whatever lesser notables are prefered (Castro, Guevara, Chavez or whatever other 'revolutionaries'). "Lefty" is a generic term, it applies to a variety of more or less socialistic perspectives and brings together a plurality with very different priorities, but a common socialist premise. Though there are a variety of different shades of leftism, each with its own merits, none of them is solid enough to represent a viable alternative, which is why they tend to group together for strength. Some are more concerned with the environment, gender, labor, ethnic or some other issue, but they see their 'struggle' better furthered casting their lot together against the 'establishment' which each reads into the root of their 'cause'. Often lefties feel they are unfairly grouped in some collectively dismissed bunch and want to expound on the particularly meritorious aspects of their ideology. Unfortunately they can't seem to limit themselves to the specific differences they have with the more generic leftism and instead tend to echo the same arguments other lefties make (which is why I lump them together). The rest of us are those not subscribing to as socialistic a perspective, a group lefties generically term "conservatives". The relevant difference here is that we balance the economy and social programs a bit closer to the center than the lefties would like.

But, if I were to say "righties" expouse nothing more than variations and watered down versions of the theories of Hitler, Attilla The Hun and Vlad Dracul you would have a heart attack and accuse me of distorting your views. You offer no real examples supporting your points. You claim EU countries are on the verge of collaspe, but cite no supporting evidence. You imply that were it not for the US and NATO, all these countries would have had to carry defense budgets that would have kept them from doing the things they have done socially, but offer no direct evidence that this is true. You are all rhetoric and no substance. Crunch some actual numbers or post some links that do that job for you. Otherwise, this is nothing more than unsupported opinion that is more than likely based in slavish devotion to "righty" dogma.

[sdbest]

Quote by: rmnunez The "lefty worldview" is a combination of Marxism with a bunch of derived socialist and generally anti-establishment ideologies as espoused by such notable lefties as Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao, as well as whatever lesser notables are prefered (Castro, Guevara, Chavez or whatever other 'revolutionaries').

Clearly, the "lefties" you're thinking about are not the ones whose world view I share, nor--I suspect--most progressives or social democrats.

Also lumping Chavez with Castro and Guevara is a disingenuous. Chavez like President Bush was elected. Except that Chavez's election was an honest one in which all the ballots were counted.

Regards
S.

[lsbskins1]

And just to be clear, I accept the label "lefty", though I think of myself as a progressive. But I do not believe Lennin or Mao had it right. I do not believe that dodge ball should be banned because someone loses. I do not believe you should get an "A" because you try hard. I do not believe that profit is a bad word. I do believe that government should have as it's purpose the protection of it's citizens. I believe that all power should be checked. I believe that every institution has the capacity for wrong-doing. I believe that "society" is short hand for the concept that man is both beast and angel and needs both a restraining force AND and enableing force. No individual is worth less or more than the collective and no collective is worth less or more than the individual. I believe greed is the greatest cause of harm in the world. I believe that truth is truth and policy should be based on fact and not dogma. I could go on, but the main point should be seen as this: I am not a communist or a socialist by definition or temperment but where there is truth and practical application in any "system" I do not reject it because it is part of a flawed whole. Questions?