Abuzz Guilt

Wouldnt "the widest possible audience" represent a country's actual "moderates", of which you claim to be one?

I mean, wouldnt "the widest possible audience" represent the political mainstream of the country, then - the part in the middle that the candidates have to win over in order to win? If you're to the right of all of that mainstream, then how can you say you're not, well, a right-winger?

Or are you saying that all of the presidential candidates, of both parties, are now to the left of the moderates?

I dunno man. I mean, if I read you correctly, the entire presidential field of both the Republican and Democratic Party is to the left of you -- but you're not a rightwinger. You're a moderate -- its just that all of your typical Americans that make up the country's "widest possible audience" have become leftwingers.

Dude.

Four of the five main parties in Holland (and all four main parties in Hungary) are to the right of me - but then I would never try to claim that I'm a moderate, or that I'm not a leftwinger...

Don't skew the graph and try to play games with me nimh. That is a classic tactic by the liberal media here in the US and 90% of folks never know they've been duped. I don't fall into that category.

Have you encountered the same sentiment gurgled ad nauseam by our resident Right-wingers?

Try this, it might be easier.





Nihm, really, these poor souls with which you argue belong to the type of personality which psychologist Robert Altemeyer labels "Right Wing Authoritarian."

The most relevant characteristic, as you have come to see in this discussion is their ability to disregard facts which challenge their world view and/or to hold contradictory ideas simultaneously without suffering any cognitive dissonance.

Their main characteristic is their belief in a hierarchical social structure lead by a strong leader. They follow this leader the way baby ducks follow the first thing they see that moves.

Arguing with such people, especially by using facts, is as unproductive as you have seen, but it does make for some witty postings, as one tills the soil of their unmitigated hypocrisy or their bizarre metaphorical asymmetries.

The bottom line: to attack a person for being something he is not is ad hominem. But to attack a person for what he is -- in this case a bold-faced liar -- is a statement of fact. Playing games with them wastes time, and does nothing to change the behavior of the liar. And that is where we devurge. As a class, I pretty much despise lazy intellectualism; where honoring prissy politeness over honesty is referred to as "balanced" and means giving the same weight to a lie as you give to the truth.

But there are also True Believers who are vastly fewer than the liars who "don't care," populating the Right, and are vastly outnumbered by those who swallow the lies and act on them. I have a fairly bright sister with no education; her effort to compete without having to make legitimate effort is to reduce everything to "opinion," and then insist that all opinions are equal. That obviously "leaves out" the more difficult question, "What is truth?"

And that -- the reduction of everything to mere "opinion" -- is a vastly common strategy of the illiterate and intellectually lazy and dishonest. A vastly greater problem than the statistically insignificant number of True Believers.

Another problem with dealing with those moral relativists to whom everything is only opinion is giving them a platform, which allows them to excreate on common decency and have them claim it's not merely legitimate "opinion" but also legitimate free speech, followed by demands that they and their ideas, regardless of repugnance are to be tolerated. Time and again they are allowed to act destructively as result of a misguided tolerance.

Sociopathy and stupidity should not to be tolerated -- unless, of course, their "opinion" is as valid as all other opinions because there's no such thing as truth.

Being in two European nations that felt the full power of Fascism on the move in the 20th century I have expected you of all persons to see that those of us who tangle with the proto-fascism of American Right Wingers do so because we have learned our history, as well as your own.

kuvasz: The bottom line: to attack a person for being something he is not is ad hominem. But to attack a person for what he is -- in this case a bold-faced liar -- is a statement of fact. Playing games with them wastes time, and does nothing to change the behavior of the liar. And that is where we devurge. As a class, I pretty much despise lazy intellectualism; where honoring prissy politeness over honesty is referred to as "balanced" and means giving the same weight to a lie as you give to the truth.


Amen to that!

What on earth are you talking about? How am I skewing what graph?

It seems pretty straightforward to me. The parties' frontrunning presidential candidates tend to represent - and target - the mainstream of their party. You said as much yourself - they target "the widest possible audience".

You say there's not one frontrunning presidential candidate of either party thats to the right of you; and that this is because they "appeal to the widest possible audience". Which apparently, for both parties, is located to the left of you.

Fine. The main audience for both parties is located to the right of me. But if you're to the right of the "widest possible audience" of even the Republican Party, then how do you get to NOT be a rightwinger? But a "moderate" instead?

I dont see how you get to the conclusion that I am "giving the same weight to a lie as I give to the truth". I certainly do not. If anything I am calling the lie out. I just dont need to call someone a scumbag to do so.


I dont even know where to begin on this. Apparently, you submit that the only reason one would possibly want to accord those with stupid or repugnant ideas the right to express them is if one would consider "their 'opinion' is as valid as all other opinions because there's no such thing as truth."

Huh?

What about believing that one is, oneself, right, and that there is, indeed, a real truth to be defended, politically, and that there are, indeed, just causes to defend and fight for, but that people who disagree with them, people whom you consider wrong, stupid or mean, should still be allowed to express their political opinion regardless? Because it's a sine qua non of wanting true freedom?

I think that once one starts forbidding people from expressing themselves and organising themselves, one is giving in to the very same totalitarian temptation you purport to deride. Period. The whole test of freedom is whether you are willing to accord it to those whom you disagree with most. Authoritarian rightwingers fail that test. Facsists and Soviet-style communists fail that test. It appears that you fail that test too. But it is a long-standing test, stemming from the friends of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I mean, right in the middle of WW1, Rosa Luxemburg - a pre-Soviet, German communist hero, who can hardly be accused of ever having harbored any kind of moral relativism - put it like this: "Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden". Freedom is always the freedom of him who thinks differently. Without freedom for him, there is no real freedom.

I stand with Rosa Luzemburg on this: like her, a person of great political conviction, who would nevertheless never want even my worst opponents to be silenced.


First off, on a note of proportionality: having lived, as you say, in European nations that have felt the full force of totalitarian dictatorship, both that of fascism and that, in Hungary's case, of Soviet communism, I have been exposed to a range of opinion and conviction that I think outspans the politically rather limited debate that takes place within the American two-party system and media. There are real fascists here - not just authoritarian, unscrupulous and bigoted rightwingers, but actual facists. I consider the inability to distinguish between the two merely a characteristic of those who havent seen much in the way of actual fascists in their country.

In short: I doubt that you'll easily find an educated European over a certain age to accept that in the venal, destructive and authoritarian President and administration you have, we should not just see a dangerous and deluded man, but an actual fascist power of sorts. We know better than that.

Moreover, and more importantly in the context of this conversation, it is having seen the stranglehold of real fascism, and then of communist totalitarianism, that peoples start to feel the sheer urgency of Voltaire's and Rosa Luxemburg's truths. The danger to freedom and democracy can come from all kinds of directions. From the right and from the far left. From bible bashers and atheists. From impatient centrists as well as from the obvious fringe nuts. All it takes to pose the danger is to have become entrenched enough in one's belief that certain others are not just wrong, but no longer deserve the right to organise and express themselves politically. That's why the rest of us have to stand firm, both against the Bushite rightwingers and against anyone else who wants to shut down his opponents, on this: "Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden".

Great, juicy exchange between two of my favorite reads on A2K. Very well writ on both parts, gentlemen.

I can't believe you would have the audacity to select a Luxemburg quote in a post that excoriates me for attacking the proto-fascist tendencies of American Right Wingers considering Luxemburg was shot in the head and her body dumped into a nearby river by murderous reactionary Germans, especially whose rhetoric lives on in the postings of the Right Wing posters of a2k I ridicule for lacking both social tack and restraint.

Who said you had no sense of comedy? If you hold still for a moment perhaps you can hear Rosa laughing from her watery grave.



note to Nihm, that ITALIC was what we Americans refer to as sarcasm; lanuguage is more than the words themselves, sorry for your confusion.

btw unlike most Americans I am quite aware of "fascist" Americans, their behavior, rhetoric, and plans, having a step father employed by the ATF and Secret Sevice whose job was to infiltrate and monitor white supremacist revolutionaries for the past several decades. Tim McVeigh was only the tip of the ice berg, but our government cannot talk about it much wthout scaring the entire country.

I would rather fight them on a2k than as Luxemburg failed to do with the Freikorps on the streets and barricards.

Maybe my French isn't up to snuff but I don't think Voltaire would have defended another person's right for calling to kill Voltaire, otherwise his magnanimous philosophy would place him in the position to defend to the death another's right to kill him, which by the way, is similar to what happened to Rosa Luxumberg.

Abuzzer
I was an active member in abuzz till the last second with my original name.
I had lost so many wonderful ex-abusers because of the inevitable natural justice.
I will be immensely pleased to those critical intellectuals in this forum.

Re: Abuzzer


and the confusion..begins..again.

History online here is that Ramafuchs was banned from SB and other websites. Let's see how well he fairs here. You got that language translating software tweaked yet, Rama?

Ragman
Of course
Mr Kevin the administrator of SB
had thrown me out from his podium.
Obviously because of my critical views.
( But sir your link is nothing to do with me.)
Don't worry If the administrator of this podium thinks that i am a burdon then he will throw me out as Mr Keviin of SB

Re: Ragman


You are mistaken. Let us be accurate here. As clearly as was stated on SB, he did NOT ban you for your critical views. That site is similar to this..with plenty of critical contributors. You broke the Terms of Service agreement on the site. This is well documented.

Let's see how you have reformed and you act here.

Re: Ragman



There may be a glimmer of the crux of the problem, Ramafuchs. Message Boards and Forums are not podiums for one person to do as they please regardless of the rules of conduct. They are services for communities of people to communicate. People agree to a standard of conduct defined in the terms of service of each of those communities.

If you continually get banned from such services, perhaps an examination of your methods (not your views) is in order. A2K has devoted extensive expertise to tutorials and guides to help people live within those rules of conduct. You'll find them here in the FORUM HELP section.


Here it is in pictures:

Not a podium


It's a community partnership we all agree to when we become members,

Ramafuchs, welcome to A2K, I have no idea of your past personas or your future behaviors, but I notice your sigline is a quote from Anon. Many of us here have held Anon in our hearts since the death of his beloved JayBea. If you have contact with him (last known here as Anon-Voter), please send on the well wishes of his A2K friends.

I second what JPB said, above.

Me too, Rama...

I used to have Anon's email address, but when he suddenly disappeared from a2k, I wrote to him, but the email bounced back.

I suspect Mr Ramafuchs' sigline has little to do with the Anon we know and love, but rather indicates that the sayer/writer of that line is unknown, at least to him.

Please feel free to correct me (again) if I am wrong (again!)

Ah, possibly true, margo, I didn't think of that. I just hoped...

Yes - we miss Anon - but - he's obviously made other decisions, at this sad time of his life.