Left wing stupidity vs Right Wing Stupidity

Celly Smunt

Johro wrote: »

My problem with that is some of the right wing posts on AH such as the one saying we should stop sending food to starving people in an overpopulated world. 'Let them die' could be considered 'practical'. It even makes good economical sense. Doesn't make it right though.

i disagree,mainly because i am a strong believer in natural selection.Me being genetically stronger and all.

Liberalbrehon

You need to clarify some things. Left and right is far too simplistic. There are generally 3 pillars to society
Political
Economic
Social (includes cultural)

Now you can have groups on either side of these in various degrees. Most Irish parties are politically right or authoritarian i.e. we know whats best for you so we're going to tell you how to live.
Economic is the main area of where people focus there left/right argument. Fairly straightforward but can be areas of gray and political economy comes into it.
Social - Here is one where Irish parties have not been honest with people. FF/FG/Labour/SF are all conservatives, not wanting personal freedoms for people, limiting human rights to certain groups but not others. Only implementing social protections when they have too. There are currently no registered pp that are historically liberal socially imo, if you can prove me wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.

So would you frame your OP differently now given this explanation? maybe just confine to economic sphere?

Johro

OisinT wrote: »

Actually many people believe that direct aid to third world countries is doing more harm than good.

In its present state, yes. It's certainly doing no good.

Johro

pmcmahon wrote: »

i disagree,mainly because i am a strong believer in natural selection.Me being genetically stronger and all.

Walk six miles to the well and back for dirty water in baking heat and we'll see how long you last.

Feeona

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

You need to clarify some things.

I agree!

OP, are you talking about your left or my left?

carfiosaoorl

This is an interesting quiz that shows you where you stand politically:D

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

thebigbiffo

when i was younger i associated the left with more personal freedoms and greater distribution of wealth and power. as i've gotten older i realised the left is actually more about taking how society develops and regulating it.

thats why i now lean to the right. the right focuses more on the individual, and the individual's right to live the life they want unhindered by the mechanisms of the state.

give me anarchy over nannystateism any day.

i know this is another example of over simplifying this but it's how i look at it.

Johro

thebigbiffo wrote: »

when i was younger i associated the left with more personal freedoms and greater distribution of wealth and power. as i've gotten older i realised the left is actually more about taking how society develops and regulating it.

thats why i now lean to the right. the right focuses more on the individual, and the individual's right to live the life they want unhindered by the mechanisms of the state.

give me anarchy over nannystateism any day.

i know this is another example of over simplifying this but it's how i look at it.

Yeah, the wealthier individual.

Johro

thebigbiffo wrote: »

when i was younger i associated the left with more personal freedoms and greater distribution of wealth and power. as i've gotten older i realised the left is actually more about taking how society develops and regulating it.

thats why i now lean to the right. the right focuses more on the individual, and the individual's right to live the life they want unhindered by the mechanisms of the state.

give me anarchy over nannystateism any day.

i know this is another example of over simplifying this but it's how i look at it.

To be fair, this is how it pans out alright. But the polarisation of right and left is no good to anybody. The arguments should be about equality, or lack of it.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Sure didn't the Almighty himself give us a crack on our arse so we could sit comfortably on the fence

thebigbiffo

Johro wrote: »

Yeah, the wealthier individual.

someone's got to make the wealth. but a healthy society finds the right balance between personal freedoms and protection of the underprivileged.

i'm just freaked out these days by our overly liberal political system constantly pushing for new regulation whereas a slightly right leaning system would let me live in a more free society.

Celly Smunt

Johro wrote: »

Walk six miles to the well and back for dirty water in baking heat and we'll see how long you last.

i can't i have a club foot

Liberalbrehon

thebigbiffo wrote: »

someone's got to make the wealth. but a healthy society finds the right balance between personal freedoms and protection of the underprivileged.

i'm just freaked out these days by our overly liberal political system constantly pushing for new regulation whereas a slightly right leaning system would let me live in a more free society.

I think you have your 'liberal' confused with your left. Liberal economists highlight the need for less regulation. Left economic thinkers want more regulation and state intervention. Some conservatives want more state intervention into your privacy but that's the social pillar.

scientific1982

The left = Light side of the force.
The right = Dark side of the force.

Scanlas The 2nd

jackiebaron wrote: »

Left vs Right ??????

Sounds from your post like you are a right-wing nutjob who just wants to bait left wingers. There's nothing "versus" about your post given your rambling anti-left screed compared to your timid little right-wing critique.

I wouldn't class myself as either. I just wanted to point out some things I find stupid about both sides. I don't like the right wing left wing terminology but it exists.

tolosenc

Both can be stupid. Both can be self-righteous. But I find it's usually only the left that are smug.

RichieC

The yanks are poisoning us with their brand of political polarisation.

The two parties there effectively control the country using election cycle nonsense that they've shorn into two sides, the country is ready start war with itself as a result.

I suggest we try find common ground and not focus so much on a contrived political spectrum.

RussellTuring

I think the OP and others have an overly-simplistic view of politics. Perhaps something like this will be enlightening. It shows you where you are on a two-dimensional chart. Answer honestly.

RichieC

RussellTuring wrote: »

I think the OP and others have an overly-simplistic view of politics. Perhaps something like this will be enlightening. It shows you where you are on a two-dimensional chart. Answer honestly.

Hmm...

cleremy jarkson

Capitalism makes the poor richer but increases the gap between rich and poor. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Socialism leaves everyone worse off in monetary terms, but reduces the gap between rich and poor.

A retard could come to the conclusion communism doesn't work provided that society is composed of human beings.

RussellTuring

RichieC wrote: »

Hmm...

It's much more detailed than left- or right-wing.

RichieC

:pac:

RussellTuring

RichieC wrote: »

:pac:

I'd never considered that...

ascanbe

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Capitalism makes the poor richer but increases the gap between rich and poor. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Socialism leaves everyone worse off in monetary terms, but reduces the gap between rich and poor.

A retard could come to the conclusion communism doesn't work provided that society is composed of human beings.

Who here was advocating communism?
That graph is hilarious, by the way.

RussellTuring

ascanbe wrote: »

Who here was advocating communism?
That graph is hilarious, though.

You can't use a graph without metrics! Won't somebody please think of the metrics?

AckwelFoley

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Capitalism makes the poor richer but increases the gap between rich and poor. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Socialism leaves everyone worse off in monetary terms, but reduces the gap between rich and poor.

A retard could come to the conclusion communism doesn't work provided that society is composed of human beings.

Very well put Cleremy, the one thing i will add to this however is that there are always a rich elite even in far left and communism, just fewer of them -They are the same rich elite that people dislike in the far right - the politicians.

Look at communist Russia back in the day - their leaders. They were pretty rich personally off the wealth of those that worked

RichieC

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'd never considered that...

Twas actually in response to Cleremy, just unfortunate timing

RichieC

snyper wrote: »

Very well put Cleremy, the one thing i will add to this however is that there are always a rich elite even in far left and communism, just fewer of them -They are the same rich elite that people dislike in the far right - the politicians.

Look at communist Russia back in the day - their leaders. They were pretty rich personally off the wealth of those that worked

noones fking talking about communism... sweet jesus on a tricycle..

RussellTuring

RichieC wrote: »

Twas actually in response to Cleremy, just unfortunate timing

Sorry about that. Wait. Am I allowed to apologise in AH or is that aginst the charter?

Snyper, I think the problem is having one group wield authority over another. As long as you can do that, then most people are going to take advantage if in the more powerful group. With state communism in the USSR, all they did was get rid of most competition and make the state supreme above all else.

SuperInfinity

Stupidity on the left is, always has been, and always will be far worse than stupidity on the right. Stupidity on the right rarely does any harm to anyone, and is often as a result of people losing brain cells as they get older. Stupidity on the left is as a result of idiot young lefties getting crazy and wild ideas and being extremely condescending about them. The left are extremely fast to call the right stupid, and that's one of the things I hate most about the left. They're so smug.

By the way, this idea of "the far left" and "the far right" is all a relatively new thing propagated by Fox News in America and now coming more and more to Ireland. These things just weren't a part of the lexicon before, sure they might in a boring way mention liberal/conservative thinking during a programme years ago, you might say "The Daily Mail is a conservative paper" but it never used to be like it is now. You never hear people talking about "the far left" on the Six One News or Questions and Answers.

Earthhorse

The great thing about an illusory enemy is that it can never be defeated nor can it ever defeat you. The right-left dichotomy is like a production of Cúchulain Fights the Sea in which both right and left have been cast as Cúchulain and the sea.

RichieC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212#

well worth the watch

cleremy jarkson

ascanbe wrote: »

Who here was advocating communism?
That graph is hilarious, by the way.

It took about a minute and a half to make. And I know nobody here is foolish enough to advocate communism, I was just putting it in perspective with the other 2 systems.

You're right snyper, regardless of what sort of system is in operation, there will always be a small elite running the place and getting rich off the backs of everyone else, that wanker kim jong il comes to mind

SuperInfinity

SuperInfinity wrote: »

=-Stupidity on the right rarely does any harm to anyone.

*ahem* Hitler.

/Godwin

Killer Pigeon

The left -vs- right argument I believe is more "human realism" (for lack of a better word) -vs- economic realism. Both sides need to be considered when forming a "sustainable" society; if you keep the workers happy it will lead to positive moral, enthusiasm and possibly improved produce but at the same time you need to consider improving economic growth and being competitive globally to increase capital.

I view capitalism as a necessary evil (much like I view the state); it encourages business growth and development and the increase in state funding to bring about social change without having a painful effect on the taxpayer. I view it sometimes as evil simple because it can lead to greed and the reckless gambling which was reflected in the economic downturn here. However I couldn't regard worker satisfaction in the same regard, as worker satisfaction is fundamentally "human" satisfaction and I dislike the clinical notion of people being treated as mere numbers on the stock market. I believe strongly in individualism and I believe that elements of corporatism can erode it.

I think that some elements of socialism can help promote the idea of individualistic worth but some socialist ideas can be unrealistic and damaging. Trade unionism has helped to improve the concept of individualistic worth over the last century but it has gotten out of hand, as many people well know - to suggest otherwise would be quite naive. Many trade unions have too much power; they have to be taken by the reigns and told enough is enough. Saying this I'm not going to devalue the necessity of there being trade unions as in the future a situation might very well arise when they will be genuinely needed to restore a balance to society.

We must be reminded too that trade unionism isn't the only major component of socialism; it's only one small part and has often blackened the socialist cause in recent times. Some beneficial concepts that socialists spout are free education and universal healthcare. I'd love to see the latter being implemented but obviously it's for better times and there aren't many political parties, apart form Labour, who would consider trying to implement it.

Up de Barrs

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Stupidity on the left is, always has been, and always will be far worse than stupidity on the right. Stupidity on the right rarely does any harm to anyone, and is often as a result of people losing brain cells as they get older. Stupidity on the left is as a result of idiot young lefties getting crazy and wild ideas and being extremely condescending about them. The left are extremely fast to call the right stupid, and that's one of the things I hate most about the left. They're so smug.

Stupidity on the right stops gay people being able to marry and denies women reproductive rights.

Earthhorse

RussellTuring wrote: »

Snyper, I think the problem is having one group wield authority over another. As long as you can do that, then most people are going to take advantage if in the more powerful group.

Under capitalism, man exploits man; under communism, the reverse happens.

RichieC

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Stupidity on the left is, always has been, and always will be far worse than stupidity on the right. Stupidity on the right rarely does any harm to anyone, and is often as a result of people losing brain cells as they get older. Stupidity on the left is as a result of idiot young lefties getting crazy and wild ideas and being extremely condescending about them. The left are extremely fast to call the right stupid, and that's one of the things I hate most about the left. They're so smug.

By the way, this idea of "the far left" and "the far right" is all a relatively new thing propagated by Fox News in America and now coming more and more to Ireland. These things just weren't a part of the lexicon before, sure they might in a boring way mention liberal/conservative thinking during a programme years ago, you might say "The Daily Mail is a conservative paper" but it never used to be like it is now. You never hear people talking about "the far left" on the Six One News or Questions and Answers.

Not at all coloured by you own biases of course.

Killer Pigeon

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Stupidity on the left is, always has been, and always will be far worse than stupidity on the right. Stupidity on the right rarely does any harm to anyone, and is often as a result of people losing brain cells as they get older. Stupidity on the left is as a result of idiot young lefties getting crazy and wild ideas and being extremely condescending about them.

Seriously? Have you learned nothing, nothing at all from the past few months or years or decades?

Stupidity amongst capitalistic circles and its encouragement has led to the situation the country is in at the minute and the reason why so many people are in debt, so many people can't pay off their mortgage or bills, the reason why 25,000 jobs are due to go in the next year and, most heart breaking imo, that 50,000 people are due to leave the country. "Stupidity on the right rarely does any harm to anyone", talk about a smug attitude.

ascanbe

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

It took about a minute and a half to make. And I know nobody here is foolish enough to advocate communism, I was just putting it in perspective with the other 2 systems.

You're right snyper, regardless of what sort of system is in operation, there will always be a small elite running the place and getting rich off the backs of everyone else, that wanker kim jong il comes to mind

Sorry, didn't realise it was your own work and you were just using it to illustrate your own view-point; thought you had picked it up elsewhere.
Anyway, there are many varying scales/balances of capitalism/socialism so, in my opinion, using the terms as absolutes is pointless.
From what i've seen, the purer a form of capitalism a country practices the less true the old 'rising tide lifts all boats'/'trickle-down' axiom becomes. They actually tend to mirror communist states; the masses stay at the same level and work to further enrich a small elite.

RussellTuring

Earthhorse wrote: »

Under capitalism, man exploits man; under communism, the reverse happens.

There really isn't much difference between communism and capitalism as long as you think the state is a necessary component of each.

HUNK

Well, I usually use the left when the right gets tired.

ascanbe

RussellTuring wrote: »

There really isn't much difference between communism and capitalism as long as you think the state is a necessary component of each.

Well, the state is, ultimately, a necessary component of any kind of system. It's really just about how big the state's role should be.

RussellTuring

ascanbe wrote: »

Well, the state is, ultimately, a necessary component of any kind of system. It's really just about how big the state's role should be.

That's a matter of opinion. But I'm not goin to convince you on Boards at ten to one.

Johro

pmcmahon wrote: »

i disagree,mainly because i am a strong believer in natural selection.Me being genetically stronger and all.

pmcmahon wrote: »

i can't i have a club foot

Genetics are a curse.

K-9

Is it that really relevant these days? Just thinking of here and Britain as examples. There you had Labour increasingly ditching the left since the 80's, Kinnock ditching the Unions and Blair finishing the job and the Tories desperately ditching any remote resemblance to Thatcher days to get elected.

Why did they do that? To give the electorate what it wants, centrist policies that marry both.

Here, Labour aren't anywhere near the party of the 80's and have ditched the default silly policies of nationalisation etc. Even the Workers Party and Democratic Left who were the real loony left here, eventually joined Labour in the increasing 100 metre sprint for the centre. SF are doing the same now that they see they have a chance of political gain.

FG are as centrist as you'll get, always were with the odd out lyer to the traditional law and order supporters.

FF try and be everything to everybody, copying from everybody. Went from McCreevey free market thinking to Bertie type socialism of high welfare and public service pay. Being FF and all things to all people they managed to put low taxes in the mix as well and to top it off, nationalising the banks!

TL;DR version, the divide isn't anywhere near as big as depicted by the extremists on both sides.

SuperInfinity

Up de Barrs wrote: »

Stupidity on the right stops gay people being able to marry and denies women reproductive rights.

That's not stupidity. No child should have to grow up with two people of the same sex in the role of their "parents". It's not natural, it's not how it goes in nature. You should have a father who is male and a mother who is female. That's how we're evolved to live and perceive things, the wisdom of nature isn't something to be messed with.

ascanbe

SuperInfinity wrote: »

That's not stupidity. No child should have to grow up with two people of the same sex in the role of their "parents". It's not natural, it's not how it goes in nature. You should have a father who is male and a mother who is female. That's how we're evolved to live and perceive things, the wisdom of nature isn't something to be messed with.

The poster you are responding to didn't mention anything about gay couples adopting children; just gonna point that out.

Amhran Nua

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Left wing stupidity: I've noticed people on the left tend to live in a fantasy world and have this idea of how the world should be regardless of how impractical their ideas or principals are. They seem to think people should have way too many entitlement given the resources and practicalies in the real world. But they don't think about things like practicality, they seem to be more concerned with some imaginary utopia in their mind that is completely unrealistic. I find Michael Graham can point out the above very well. Although he is quite stupid on certain things too IMO.

Right Wing Stupidity: I think this boils down to them living in the past, they often cling to principals and ideas that are no longer relevant. I admire much of their practical view of the world though.

Welcome to the radical centre.

ascanbe

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Welcome to the radical centre.

Is that where Michael Graham resides? Who knew?