The purpose of this thread is to provide a venue for the robust discussion of politics, but without rancour.
That is:
1) The nuts and bolts of political philosophies and ideologies;
2) The reasons, beliefs and/or values that influence our personal choice of politics;
3) The possible means of achieving political goals
It is too easy to throw out political labels as a means of demonising an outgroup. Libertarian is one that is used to good effect on FfTB, irrespective of whether one actually subscribes to the ideology, or has bought the t-shirt. Similarly, Socialist and/or Liberal seems to be an awful affliction to our brethren and sistren in the USA (whereas a Liberal in Australia is a Conservative, and Obama is Centre-Right).
At this dinner table we actually want to learn and understand what people think, and why they think what they do. Who knows, some of us might even change our mental models.
To kick things off, I think that Right Wing and Left Wing are obsolete political labels because they require political positions to be mutually exclusive. For example it is possible to be socially progressive (left wing) and fiscally conservative (right wing)
I would hope that in this discourse we can move beyond my values are right and your values are wrong.
Political discourse at the dinner table
Re: Political discourse at the dinner table
Well, I was going to post this on the Periodic Table of Swearing, but after seeing your post I thought I would chime in here instead - although it may not get picked up by so many.
Left/Right wing is still relevant. It is a part of a political spectrum which generally gets augmented by an orthogonal Libertarian / Authoritarian axis. (People have argued for more axes beyond this, but it quickly gets difficult for most people who aren't mathematicians to visualise...)
The hatred of libertarianism by many is strange to me, especially the way people like PZ characterise it; because libertarianism represents a spectrum of views, to be so general about it is incredibly odd. It's like saying all left wing people are wrong, or all right people are wrong. If someone has that simplistic a viewpoint, they've probably not really understood the topic.
Libertarianism is a part of the political spectrum that runs from the centre ground with a bias towards smaller, efficient government, through to liberal left / right politics, through to minarchism, then on to anarcho-capitalism. Painting these with a broad brush like PZ et ass do is a bit like saying all left wing thinking is wrong because of communism. That's a shallow viewpoint.
The other problem is, of course, that what constitutes "centre ground" largely depends on where you live; the centre ground of the left/right spectrum is rather different if you live in the US vs. the EU. Moderate left wing policies in the US may be perceived as moderate right wing in the EU.
There used to be an interesting link with examples of various presidents on a chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2/), but the images don't show for me; not sure if the site is broken or just my browser. Wiki has a long meandering discussion on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum.
Incidentally, someone who has left-wing social values and right-wing economic values is most likely to be characterised as centre-ground on the left-right axis and moderately liberatarian on the libertarian-authoritarian axis.
Left/Right wing is still relevant. It is a part of a political spectrum which generally gets augmented by an orthogonal Libertarian / Authoritarian axis. (People have argued for more axes beyond this, but it quickly gets difficult for most people who aren't mathematicians to visualise...)
The hatred of libertarianism by many is strange to me, especially the way people like PZ characterise it; because libertarianism represents a spectrum of views, to be so general about it is incredibly odd. It's like saying all left wing people are wrong, or all right people are wrong. If someone has that simplistic a viewpoint, they've probably not really understood the topic.
Libertarianism is a part of the political spectrum that runs from the centre ground with a bias towards smaller, efficient government, through to liberal left / right politics, through to minarchism, then on to anarcho-capitalism. Painting these with a broad brush like PZ et ass do is a bit like saying all left wing thinking is wrong because of communism. That's a shallow viewpoint.
The other problem is, of course, that what constitutes "centre ground" largely depends on where you live; the centre ground of the left/right spectrum is rather different if you live in the US vs. the EU. Moderate left wing policies in the US may be perceived as moderate right wing in the EU.
There used to be an interesting link with examples of various presidents on a chart (http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2/), but the images don't show for me; not sure if the site is broken or just my browser. Wiki has a long meandering discussion on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum.
Incidentally, someone who has left-wing social values and right-wing economic values is most likely to be characterised as centre-ground on the left-right axis and moderately liberatarian on the libertarian-authoritarian axis.
-
Horace AKA Netnanny
Re: Political discourse at the dinner table
I have no time to make another post today, but these are some posts from another thread.
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/07/26 ... upportive/
Horace July 27, 2012 at 3:56 am
Wowbagger,
Your side’s definition of sexist beast is pretty broad.
Would you call Abbie or Scented water sexists ?
More importantly you feel that by posting against us you are fighting sexism/homophobia/racism. Because of this any politeness on your part would be a compromise with the forces of evil; something like offering an SS officer a cold drink half way through a genocide so that he can get his strength back. (sorry for the Godwin).
I have two problems with this:
-this is the internet. Even if you were right and I was as evil as you think I am, nothing that you say to me is going to change this. Imagine, as a thought experiment, that you could chat by internet to a 1938 Nazi or dedicated Maoist in the 50s. Assuming that they were evil it is unlikely that anything you could say to them would change what they were going to do. The most useful thing that you could do would be to listen to them and understand how people become this way. It would be instructive in the same way that reading “the Cleanest race†would be. And if they were misguided rather than evil, ranting at them would be counter productive.
Second, you are wrong. We are not committed to evil, we are less sure of what the right thing to do is. Look at the positions that left wingers and feminists held 100 years ago and compare them with present discourse. More recently think of Cesar Chavez beating up illegal immigrants or reformers making sure that women were not allowed to work in mines.
You can argue that they were wrong and we are right; it is more likely that we are also wrong about many things. A good skeptic should realize that they are probably wrong about many things and be more willing than the general public to consider other points of view.
Horace July 27, 2012 at 4:23 am
Freki,
I think that we can be much surer of questions about science (e.g. existence of god, creationism, UFOs) than we can about questions of social science (role of the state in the economy, best way to improve the position of women in society). Look at the positions that the left and right held a hundred years ago, our own positions are probably equally stupid.
A good example, I saw a Newsweek article several years ago asking why European women’s participation in the Labour force was lower than in the states, asking what they had to do to catch up to the Yanks. It turned out that the reason there were more women at work in the US was a lousy social safety net, the women had no choice but to work.
Wowbagger-If you take me on in online debate you can either do so to educate me or bystanders or learn from me (see reference to thought experiment above). Neither is helped by being rude and confrontational.
You can also yell at me online as a form of therapy, but their are dangers to this, I think that it can become addictive and your default mode online. On the previous page I mention the case of a kid who wandered onto the Pharyngula site who you guys pulled to pieces, as much out of force of habit as anything else.
I don’t think that you realized how unpleasant you were being and this sort of behaviour means that many people (myself included) have trouble taking you seriously when you talk about women being treated mysogenystically.
The things you complain about are often minor compared with the stuff you routinely do.
all the best from the Slyme pit,
will check this again tomorrow.
Horace July 27, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I will try to keep this short,
PatrickG, I keep mentioning the errors of progressives 100 years ago not to congratulate ourselves on how far we have come, but to remind us that there is a good chance that we are equally wrong.
Read Paul Erlich predicting famine in the 1970s, read about progressives fighting for international disarmament in the 1930s, or Sidney and Beatrice Webb talking about Soviet Russia in the 1920s.
Are you so sure that comments about rape culture in the US and white privilege will not seem equally stupid in 20 years ?
Even if you are right on these issues future progressives may see these questions as distractions in the far more important fight against climate change or for animal rights. The economies of developed countries looks to many as if they are about to fall apart. Would you like it remembered that while this was happening atheists were divided by the question of whether you should try to pick up a woman in an elevator ?
I do not think that women should feel unwelcome at atheist gatherings. A code of conduct that is as unambiguous as possible to ensure that they are welcome is great, but we should not insist on ideological conformity on the existence of rape culture or other questions of feminism.
If your side wins there is a good chance that the atheist movement in the early 21st century will be remembered for being wronger and more dogmatic than many religions.
all the best,
Horace
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/07/26 ... upportive/
Horace July 27, 2012 at 3:56 am
Wowbagger,
Your side’s definition of sexist beast is pretty broad.
Would you call Abbie or Scented water sexists ?
More importantly you feel that by posting against us you are fighting sexism/homophobia/racism. Because of this any politeness on your part would be a compromise with the forces of evil; something like offering an SS officer a cold drink half way through a genocide so that he can get his strength back. (sorry for the Godwin).
I have two problems with this:
-this is the internet. Even if you were right and I was as evil as you think I am, nothing that you say to me is going to change this. Imagine, as a thought experiment, that you could chat by internet to a 1938 Nazi or dedicated Maoist in the 50s. Assuming that they were evil it is unlikely that anything you could say to them would change what they were going to do. The most useful thing that you could do would be to listen to them and understand how people become this way. It would be instructive in the same way that reading “the Cleanest race†would be. And if they were misguided rather than evil, ranting at them would be counter productive.
Second, you are wrong. We are not committed to evil, we are less sure of what the right thing to do is. Look at the positions that left wingers and feminists held 100 years ago and compare them with present discourse. More recently think of Cesar Chavez beating up illegal immigrants or reformers making sure that women were not allowed to work in mines.
You can argue that they were wrong and we are right; it is more likely that we are also wrong about many things. A good skeptic should realize that they are probably wrong about many things and be more willing than the general public to consider other points of view.
Horace July 27, 2012 at 4:23 am
Freki,
I think that we can be much surer of questions about science (e.g. existence of god, creationism, UFOs) than we can about questions of social science (role of the state in the economy, best way to improve the position of women in society). Look at the positions that the left and right held a hundred years ago, our own positions are probably equally stupid.
A good example, I saw a Newsweek article several years ago asking why European women’s participation in the Labour force was lower than in the states, asking what they had to do to catch up to the Yanks. It turned out that the reason there were more women at work in the US was a lousy social safety net, the women had no choice but to work.
Wowbagger-If you take me on in online debate you can either do so to educate me or bystanders or learn from me (see reference to thought experiment above). Neither is helped by being rude and confrontational.
You can also yell at me online as a form of therapy, but their are dangers to this, I think that it can become addictive and your default mode online. On the previous page I mention the case of a kid who wandered onto the Pharyngula site who you guys pulled to pieces, as much out of force of habit as anything else.
I don’t think that you realized how unpleasant you were being and this sort of behaviour means that many people (myself included) have trouble taking you seriously when you talk about women being treated mysogenystically.
The things you complain about are often minor compared with the stuff you routinely do.
all the best from the Slyme pit,
will check this again tomorrow.
Horace July 27, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I will try to keep this short,
PatrickG, I keep mentioning the errors of progressives 100 years ago not to congratulate ourselves on how far we have come, but to remind us that there is a good chance that we are equally wrong.
Read Paul Erlich predicting famine in the 1970s, read about progressives fighting for international disarmament in the 1930s, or Sidney and Beatrice Webb talking about Soviet Russia in the 1920s.
Are you so sure that comments about rape culture in the US and white privilege will not seem equally stupid in 20 years ?
Even if you are right on these issues future progressives may see these questions as distractions in the far more important fight against climate change or for animal rights. The economies of developed countries looks to many as if they are about to fall apart. Would you like it remembered that while this was happening atheists were divided by the question of whether you should try to pick up a woman in an elevator ?
I do not think that women should feel unwelcome at atheist gatherings. A code of conduct that is as unambiguous as possible to ensure that they are welcome is great, but we should not insist on ideological conformity on the existence of rape culture or other questions of feminism.
If your side wins there is a good chance that the atheist movement in the early 21st century will be remembered for being wronger and more dogmatic than many religions.
all the best,
Horace