Hahaha. But that's great, I always learn a whole lot here, and there are these thread which generate various interesting comments.
I liked YourValentine's and Donna13's comments in particular.
As for Tenchijin2, I find it sad that you're not going to post in this thread anymore, it was interesting to know your views.
You know why?
I understand what you say about the concepts of "left" and "right" being contextual to different countries and cultures, but politics, and economics, have been crossing the boundaries between nation-states for so long that I don't really think it's a helpful way of approaching the issue.
If you think about it in a historical perspective, what Obama says is not much different from what Social Democrats have been defending over such a long time. New issues have come to political consciousness, for sure, but some of them are pretty much what social democracy throughout the war has fighted for, and I never thought about social democrats, at least from the mid-20th on, as "radical left".
Now, here, in Latin America, wow, you have radical left - there are parties and movements which reject the democratic institutional framework we are accostumed to - freedom of speech, private ownership, freedom of movement and association, and so on. Some movements, though not all, I want to stress it, are outright terrorist groups, like the FARC, which make huge damages to my country due to drug trafficking and dealing. So, yes, you have Chávez, who now demands every citizen to be a guardian of the revolution - it's like a Gestapo made up by most of the population!
So, it's scaring, no doubt. And, really, in this integrated world we live in, a world in which everything is linked to other cultures and countries, I think it's not that helpful to contextualize politics just in terms of national sovergein states. I think a more global approach is needed because we're all interacting: if Obama had to deal with the Farc, for sure he'd chase them down and help Uribe out (don't wanna enter this discussion, just pointing out what does the labels really look like in the real world) - does really undermine the case for Obama being "radical left".
It's just my humble opinion. I guess it's a more useful way to deal with these issues.
Take care!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Guitarist and lead singer Arthur Lee of 60's psychedelic ROCK band Love was black.
It's a well known fact that anything that Brian believes in is right, and if you have any other point of view (whether it be about politicians, hedgehogs, outer space, or even music) then you are WRONG - fact. (Well, that's what Brian seems to beleive anyway)!! :-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH
wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tenchijin2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Just as all of you would call me "ultra-right-wing" or "ultra-conservative". That's fine. It's not an insult, it's a definition.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. You can define yourself all you want as you're entitled, but don't go off defining others based on their differing views from yours. But clearly, by your definition, anyone who cares about animal rights, the environment, or the lower economic class is left wing. These are not inherently political issues. They are realities that you can choose to acknowledge or ignore. The fact that people care about these issues doesn't make them "left wing" by default. These issues only become politicized when the left wing needs to pick up the pieces after the right wing chooses to ignore them. Also, anyone who acknowledges that it was wrong to spend trillions on a war that went against international law is not left wing. They are simply correct. [/QUOTE] Well written
wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tenchijin2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Just as all of you would call me "ultra-right-wing" or "ultra-conservative". That's fine. It's not an insult, it's a definition.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. You can define yourself all you want as you're entitled, but don't go off defining others based on their differing views from yours. But clearly, by your definition, anyone who cares about animal rights, the environment, or the lower economic class is left wing. These are not inherently political issues. They are realities that you can choose to acknowledge or ignore. The fact that people care about these issues doesn't make them "left wing" by default. These issues only become politicized when the left wing needs to pick up the pieces after the right wing chooses to ignore them. Also, anyone who acknowledges that it was wrong to spend trillions on a war that went against international law is not left wing. They are simply correct. [/QUOTE] Well written
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tenchijin2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You actually believe that I don't care about certain people. That I like death, and that I don't care about the environment.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, because you said it yourself - albeit not directly. Allow me to illustrate.
You labelled left-wing people as those who care about the environment, which in turn means that you assert right-wing people like yourself don't. If you did care, you wouldn't have used this issue as part of your attack on the left, polarizing that you choose to engage in.
Same goes for health care, an issue that is most important to people who cannot afford to pay for private health care (which doesn't necessarily make them left-wing). As a conservative who uses health care as an example in the denouncement of the left, this therefore means you don't support their needs in their particular place in the financial spectrum.
You also indicated that you believe there is something wrong with those who are anti-war. By denouncing people who are anti-war, you are inadvertently stating that you support the war, and thus support the 100,000+ civilian deaths inflicted by the US, and the fact that trillions of dollars were required to make those deaths possible - deaths that are creating mass hatred for the west, and somehow leave people in the white house (and people all over the country who vote republican) scratching their heads wondering why airplanes are being flown into buildings.
Before you accuse me of attacking you, please note that the accusation of being intolerant of someone else's initial intolerance is an age-old circular argument that continues to attack people and not the problems themselves. It doesn't fly.
[QUOTE]To you "ultra conservative" means bad, but there is essentially no left-wing position which is bad.[/QUOTE]
No, I definitely didn't state that, nor did I even state that I myself am a left-wing person. Just because I generally don't subscribe to right-wing views doesn't automatically designate me as left-wing. The world isn't black and white, thus creating multiple options for thought than big brother would like to dictate to you.
[QUOTE]Definitionally to you, you are simply 'right' and conservatives are simply 'bad'.[/QUOTE]
I'm not right on all levels, nor am I flawless, nor can I say for sure that my views now are the ones I'll hold tomorrow, next week, or next year. We're in a world that's evolving, and thus our views, knowledge of the world, and tolerance for new ideas all need to evolve with it. These practices do not belong at any particular place of the political spectrum. They are common sense. Either you do it, or you are left behind in the ways of the past - ways that over time become obsolete, usually after much kicking and screaming from those whose "treasured" values/prejudices become difficult and eventually downright impossible to sustain.
That said, I challenge you to prove me wrong, if open-minded conversation is what you want. What good has ultra-conservative thought brought to the world? How has it advanced things? Why shouldn't there be a plurality of ideas and understanding of these differences? What good has the politics of fear done? What good have anti-abortion laws done for women who have been raped? When has war ever created a long-lasting solution to a problem, or left a mark that wasn't forgotten after a few generations? These are all questions I've been seeking answers to for years, and have never gotten them. I welcome your answers.
Absolutely, because you said it yourself - albeit not directly. Allow me to illustrate.
You labelled left-wing people as those who care about the environment, which in turn means that you assert right-wing people like yourself don't. If you did care, you wouldn't have used this issue as part of your attack on the left, polarizing that you choose to engage in.
Same goes for health care, an issue that is most important to people who cannot afford to pay for private health care (which doesn't necessarily make them left-wing). As a conservative who uses health care as an example in the denouncement of the left, this therefore means you don't support their needs in their particular place in the financial spectrum.
You also indicated that you believe there is something wrong with those who are anti-war. By denouncing people who are anti-war, you are inadvertently stating that you support the war, and thus support the 100,000+ civilian deaths inflicted by the US, and the fact that trillions of dollars were required to make those deaths possible - deaths that are creating mass hatred for the west, and somehow leave people in the white house (and people all over the country who vote republican) scratching their heads wondering why airplanes are being flown into buildings.
Before you accuse me of attacking you, please note that the accusation of being intolerant of someone else's initial intolerance is an age-old circular argument that continues to attack people and not the problems themselves. It doesn't fly.
[QUOTE]To you "ultra conservative" means bad, but there is essentially no left-wing position which is bad.[/QUOTE]
No, I definitely didn't state that, nor did I even state that I myself am a left-wing person. Just because I generally don't subscribe to right-wing views doesn't automatically designate me as left-wing. The world isn't black and white, thus creating multiple options for thought than big brother would like to dictate to you.
[QUOTE]Definitionally to you, you are simply 'right' and conservatives are simply 'bad'.[/QUOTE]
I'm not right on all levels, nor am I flawless, nor can I say for sure that my views now are the ones I'll hold tomorrow, next week, or next year. We're in a world that's evolving, and thus our views, knowledge of the world, and tolerance for new ideas all need to evolve with it. These practices do not belong at any particular place of the political spectrum. They are common sense. Either you do it, or you are left behind in the ways of the past - ways that over time become obsolete, usually after much kicking and screaming from those whose "treasured" values/prejudices become difficult and eventually downright impossible to sustain.
That said, I challenge you to prove me wrong, if open-minded conversation is what you want. What good has ultra-conservative thought brought to the world? How has it advanced things? Why shouldn't there be a plurality of ideas and understanding of these differences? What good has the politics of fear done? What good have anti-abortion laws done for women who have been raped? When has war ever created a long-lasting solution to a problem, or left a mark that wasn't forgotten after a few generations? These are all questions I've been seeking answers to for years, and have never gotten them. I welcome your answers.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Saif wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Black people don't listen to rock music. FACT. I'm not saying white people shouldn't listen to rock then, I mean that black people of today generally hate rock music. I know an African-American guy on MSN and he gets mad if I talk about rock. He says stuff like "Keep that shit to yourselves", even though I'm not white(I'm Indian). There's no reason to get mad at me for it, saying I'm racist or whatever. It's true.
EDIT:
For further proof- SERIOUSLY. Name just ONE black Queenzoner. Yeah, thought so.[/QUOTE]
So, essentially, because you know one black person who doesn't like rock, none do?
That really makes no sense. Come have a look at my university. Plenty of black people listening to rock there.
EDIT:
For further proof- SERIOUSLY. Name just ONE black Queenzoner. Yeah, thought so.[/QUOTE]
So, essentially, because you know one black person who doesn't like rock, none do?
That really makes no sense. Come have a look at my university. Plenty of black people listening to rock there.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]