Diversity of Everything but Thought

dlowan wrote:

Couple of years? Last couple of decades, I would say.

Our Labor Party is now occupying a lot of the ground our conservatives occupied previously - our conservatives have moved much farther right.

I was talking about the A2K timeline. I didn't want to assume/presume what people were saying/thinking/posting before that.

0 Replies

lol. Everywhere else, I'm pretty center. Here, I'm a liberal. Smile

0 Replies

Lol! I would have thought that there you would be a Communist!

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Lash wrote:
in a groupthink environment, the center moves to the extreme (again, I think this has been proven...?)

Isn't this what most non-U.S. posters here have been saying for a couple of years? The Democrats have moved noticeably right of centre over the past several decades, forcing the Republicans further right of centre - til they've nudged the extreme edge of right of the global political spectrum.

Doesn't seem like any kind of newsflash to me. <shrug>

Well. How many ways is this incorrect...?

The cheap point-- If the point I was making was not considered a newsflash--you'd be supporting my point...that what I have said is in fact, a well-known fact.

But, you didn't get it correct.

Groupthink--> a group of people with the same ideology, beliefs, whatever. They all agree. They could be Democrat, conservative, racists, environmentalists, gung-ho hunters...

When you get a homogenous group together, they move toward the extreme.

So, your Dems to the right would be wrong. Following the pattern, a groupthink bunch,...the Dems would have gone left---the conservatives further right.

Because they are in politics, it perverts my thesis. They are dependant on votes. I think if they weren't, the Dems would all be freaky tree-huggers and the conservatives would be in jail due to refusing to pay taxes.

Anyway, I'll have to go get a related study about the effects of groupthink.

Soon.

Maybe...

Anyone else have a view on the effects of groupthink?

0 Replies

The American Democrats have been centre or slightly right of centre for decades. They have, as a group, moved further right.

American Republicans have been right of centre for decades. They have, as a group, moved further right.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I was agreeing with one point in your argument, Lash. Much as dlowan, soz and others (including me when I came back to the board and caught up) had agreed with part(s) of previous of your posts. <shrug> Sometimes agreeing just seems to confuse people.

0 Replies

Lash writes

Quote:

Because they are in politics, it perverts my thesis. They are dependant on votes. I think if they weren't, the Dems would all be freaky tree-huggers and the conservatives would be in jail due to refusing to pay taxes.

Okay, but if I'm going to jail, please tell me my block mates are bridge players.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

The American Democrats have been centre or slightly right of centre for decades. They have, as a group, moved further right.

American Republicans have been right of centre for decades. They have, as a group, moved further right.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I was agreeing with one point in your argument, Lash. Much as dlowan, soz and others (including me when I came back to the board and caught up) had agreed with part(s) of previous of your posts. <shrug> Sometimes agreeing just seems to confuse people.

Yep - the move to the right has been a decades long world-wide phenomenon.

0 Replies

Okay I think we have a difference in perception in what is left and right when we cross international boundaries here. The reasons I think so is I believe that ehBath and Dlowan are both sincere in their perceptions, but what they are saying doesn't entirely compute with perceptions here. Another reason is Nimh once explained his definitions of liberal, conservative, left, right, etc. and, while it all made perfectly good sense to him, my head is still spinning.

It seems to me that the Democrats are as left as they have ever been on the following just for starters, and the Republicans aren't as far right as they used to be. (This is just a very partial list)

Tax policy
Social welfare
The military
Gun regulation
Environment vs property rights
Education

0 Replies

Kindly explicate your thesis on those items, Fox.

eg, as I understand it, Clinton cut welfare.

Sorry - that sounded curt - I am really interested in this.

0 Replies

Looks like you're going to need a new thread to explain that interesting view, FoxF.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay I think we have a difference in perception in what is left and right when we cross international boundaries here. The reasons I think so is I believe that ehBath and Dlowan are both sincere in their perceptions, but what they are saying doesn't entirely compute with perceptions here. Another reason is Nimh once explained his definitions of liberal, conservative, left, right, etc. and, while it all made perfectly good sense to him, my head is still spinning.

Quite a while ago I dropped out of this forum because I realized I didn't understand the substantive differences between the political left and the political right. I still don't!

However, I thought I would try this one dimensional definition on you just to see what reaction I might get.

EXTREME LEFT<==>everyone live by your own rules<==>everyone live by our rules<==>everyone live by majority rules<==>everyone live by the super majority rules<==>everyone live by the current rules<==>everyone live by the previous rules<==>everyone live by the old rules<==>everyone live by my rules<==>EXTREME RIGHT

0 Replies

Well the thread started out with a thesis of diversity of thought or lack thereof on University campuses; so what is more diverse in thought than ideology between left or right?

As Ican just illustrated, the extremes of both left and right attempt to force their value system on everybody else. But there is a fine line between a) 'forcing ones value on everyone else' and b) defending oneself from policy demanded by others.

On tax policy for instance: would it be safe to say the left usually thinks it is fine to tax the rich to give to the poor while the right is more likely to say everyone should be taxed the same? At least that is the way it mostly is in the United States. But just about any issue you can think of could be fit into the discussion.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ps Horowitz is nothing but a politically motivated, right-wing hack. He hasn't done anything but criticize the Left for twenty years, and this latest attack is no different.

I've heard this at least five times from two different sources... that must mean that it's true!

And I've heard, at least five times, from multiple sources, that the US never landed on the moon. Unfortunately, I've never had the cognitive ability of DrewDad that might enable me to understand that volume equals truth.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ps Horowitz is nothing but a politically motivated, right-wing hack. He hasn't done anything but criticize the Left for twenty years, and this latest attack is no different.

I've heard this at least five times from two different sources... that must mean that it's true!

And I've heard, at least five times, from multiple sources, that the US never landed on the moon. Unfortunately, I've never had the cognitive ability of DrewDad that might enable me to understand that volume equals truth.

And the reference went right over your head. Not surprising, considering the orifice your head habitually occupies.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I don't see the correlation, but I'll fight to the death your right to make it. You might or might not see how off base you are if you had read the thread though.

I had read most of the thread, actually, I just missed that part in which Lash saw the light and came down front to recommit her life to logic. But now I've read every little itty bit of the thread, which of course, as you point out, may or may not cause me to see my distance from your far off base. In any case, it's not clear from what you have written above which correlation you might be referring to. So I don't know if what you see correlates with anything either......oh well........

Going to bed now. That's enough of this thread for a day. good night all.

0 Replies

Lola has reading comprehension problems.

My view hasn't changed. I just found a way to describe it, and to show you how close you are to mine.

0 Replies

Lol - it's getting spooky, eh?

(Shark music from Jaws......heehee...)

0 Replies

We'll all be complacent...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Another reason is Nimh once explained his definitions of liberal, conservative, left, right, etc. and, while it all made perfectly good sense to him, my head is still spinning.

Aint that complicated.

Conservative = religious values, free market
Liberal = secular values, free market
Socialdemocrat/Leftist = secular values, redistributive economy

In terms of rough, broad generalised categories those work for most every country outside the US.

Foxfyre wrote:

It seems to me that the Democrats are as left as they have ever been on the following just for starters, and the Republicans aren't as far right as they used to be. (This is just a very partial list)

Tax policy
Social welfare
The military
Gun regulation
Environment vs property rights
Education

John Kerry's platform was as left as the Democrats' has ever been on taxes, welfare? As leftist as, say, LBJ's, McGovern's or Mondale's? Are you serious?

Would be interesting to dig up some election programmes, compare the top tax rate Mondale, McGovern or LBJ was proposing with that Kerry or Clinton proponed/implemented ...

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

John Kerry's platform was as left as the Democrats' has ever been on taxes, welfare? As leftist as, say, LBJ's, McGovern's or Mondale's? Are you serious?

Would be interesting to dig up some election programmes, compare the top tax rate Mondale, McGovern or LBJ was proposing with that Kerry or Clinton proponed/implemented ...

I think it would be more useful to focus on the general theory rather than risk falling into the 'whose is blackest trap'. Your other descriptions of left/right etc. are exactly what we should look at though Nimh.

But take taxes. John Kerry campaigned on a platform of rolling back President Bush's tax cuts on one hand, imposing additional taxes on the richest Americans on the other, and using increased tax revenue for increased social programs. This is a decidedly 'left' or "Democrat' view in the United States. To tax people for the common good is acceptable and good and to require the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income than others do is also acceptable and good.

Now we look at President Bush who pushed and prevailed in encouraging Congress to make significant tax cuts across the board with everybody benefitting. This is a decidedly 'rightish' or Republican kind of thing to do.

Kerry, however, pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class. That is a rightish view.

The very rich received the most in $ amount in the Republican tax cut but the smallest percentage, the middle class received a larger percentage, and millions of the working poor were dropped from a requirement to pay any tax at all. The progressive method of taxation or even tax cuts is decidedly 'leftish'.

The 'left' advocates raising taxes to raise revenue.
The 'right' advocates cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and thus increase revenues from a more robust GDP.

The 'left' advocates taxing the rich to help the poor.
The 'right' advocates equity in taxation on the theory that a rising tide lifts all boats and taxing the rich ultimately hurts the poor.

Now this is my take on it as it applies in the United States. Others may have a different view.

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know