Is the Politics Forum Winding Down?

If Mr Sunday came in my pub late at night he would retire in the face of the overwheming force of mush.And it would make sense on an instictive level for him to so do.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

About nimh's 'most right-wing' part: the FDP, which he calls 'one of the most right-wing parties', isn't considered particularly right-wing in Germany. 'Right-wing' here implies political Christianity, xenophobia, or both, either of which the FDP is opposed to and working against. We usually classify the FDP as in the middle between the two large parties.

Hah, I see that even the two of you Germans here already disagree about that statement! Razz

When it comes to economic policy, social policy, that whole meat of political discourse, the FDP is to the right of the Christian-Democrats. The CDU (minus Kirchhof experiment) and particularly the CSU are distinctly more welfare-state oriented and statist (what Americans would call 'liberal') than the FDP.

When it comes to cultural issues (religion, civil rights, immigration), for sure, the FDP is to the Christian Democrats' left.

But the FDP itself has clearly laid out which of the two things is more important to them.

Ever since the 80s, they have aligned their loyalties unambiguously (some would say slavishly) with the conservatives: the trusted bywagon of any prospective Christian-Democratic Chancellor, apparently satisfied with defending their wealthy voters' financial interest.

Like Walter says, in that light it's hard to imagine many people not considering today's FDP a right-wing party.

If you look at this year's elections, I definitely consider you at the opposite end of the spectrum. Cultural values barely played a role after all, even immigration only came up in the odd aside of the CSU's Beckstein [sp?]. It was all about the economy. I sympathised, this time, with the strident old-school leftists; you sided with the libertarian reformers. Couldnt be further apart.

Of course, that's all just "nuance", because apparently our opinions are glaringly homogenous... Razz

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Of course, all that must just be "nuance", because apparently our opinions are glaringly homogenous...

From one liberal to another: Sure, they are barely distinguishable!

0 Replies

You guys keep this up and Steppenwolf will get the idea that there are fewer conservatives on this thread.

0 Replies

Mind you, Steppenwolf has a point. Forget about left vs right; social conservatives are conspicuously rare here.

Even among rightwingers, the leaning is libertarian. McGentrix, Phoenix, they don't get worked up about gay marriage - if anything, they're on the liberal side of the argument. Women's rights, gay rights, immigration and race - admittedly, those are the counts someone like Lash scores liberal on. I dont know what Georgeob1 thinks about gay marriage, but such things dont seem to preoccupy him much, anyway. Same with Brandon. Foxfyre is the closest we get on social conservatism on the right.

But on the left too, collectivist values are conspicuously absent. Few Old Labour types here (hello Walter), no Linkspartei-type trade union socialists. No communists I know of. But lots of Greens. Libertine individualists all.

There's plenty of leftists in Europe, and I'm guessing Latin-America too, who are socially conservative, and just fight for bread-and-butter issues. Those are not here. And there's not a single nationalist/populist-type leftist that's defined the Left in much of Eastern Europe.

On the socio-economic scale of left to right, welfare-state socialist to free-market libertarian, the spread on this board is broad. But on the values axis of individualist/libertine versus collectivist/conservative, there's pretty much no 'other side', period!

Is it because the web attracts individualists? Is it a class thing (web access still being mostly for the middle classes, in many places)?

Steppenwolf wrote:

Sure, there are real differences between these perspectives, but none of these perspectives represent social conservatism

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

nimh wrote:
Of course, all that must just be "nuance", because apparently our opinions are glaringly homogenous...

From one liberal to another: Sure, they are barely distinguishable!

Dont you call me liberal, you flat-taxer!! Laughing

Anecdote: when the Green Left's new leader Femke Halsema, a year or two ago, tentatively called the party's prospective new course "left-liberal" an outcry erupted. We're leftists, dont bring us any of that liberal crap! If she ever gets her way on that count, I'm sending back my membership card Razz

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

In any case, on the count of the board becoming "politically homogenous in the near future", one must wonder at the world view that would consider, say, the views of Squinney and Blatham, Soz and me, and Thomas and Panzade, for example, to constitute homogenity. None of them would vote Bush, thats true, but otherwise there's not all that much common ground between the lot, I'd say.

I'd not waste time on the "homogenous" line. I have been hearing it several times a month since A2K's inception and it's just a odd way for individuals to express that something other individuals do is objectionable to them. Instead of merely stating as much they tie it to some looming consequence whose veracity is unimportant for the tactic.

It usually works like this:

X dislikes the way those on the opposite side of the political spectrum argue. X states that if they continue they will not have anyone but themselves to talk to.

X dislikes that Y action was taken against them (be it a suspension, pulled post etc) and informs whatever staff is answering them that the way the staff operates will ensure the site's impending demise (a variation is that X speaks for all those who are politically close to his position and that they would all magically pack up and leave).

In the first scenario it usually tends to be conservatives weary of being outnumbered. It, of course, hasn't ever come to pass since conservatism isn't really rare or anything.

In the second scenario it tends to be people from both political spectrums.

In both scenarios, the demise of X is greatly exaggerated, and I think it's just a short-sighted way to say "I dislike Y".

Maybe "I dislike Y" isn't as appealing as "the great and woeful X will happen if Y does not cease".

In any case, life goes on, the world keeps spinning and suchlike.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
So many features, so little time. That one's an important one though.

I understand -- and I didn't mean to assign homework to you.

It's actually good timing. It's been on the backburner for over a year. And the state of phpBB is making me seriously consider my own fork or my own ground up BB (with an ask an expert feature-set focus).

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Is it because the web attracts individualists? Is it a class thing (web access still being mostly for the middle classes, in many places)?

IMO this site's demographics are more influenced by it's purpose than web demographics.

e.g. don't you think political demographics on a site dedicated to learning would be different than a site dedicated to NASCAR?

Add the free knowledge sharing angle and I think those end up being more influencing factors than web demographics.

Similar to how open-source projects tend to attract leftie programmers more so than righties.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Yes, hear hear!

.. & sometimes you just feel like being part of an stimulating discussion, only to find someone trying drag you into a fight because of something you've said.

Lol!!! That is endemic to political discussions, not just to American political discussions!

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Sturgis, have really appreciated your perspective.

Overall, I think Thomas has it in terms of "death of the internet imminent!" I joined Abuzz when it was flush with cash and moderators, but there were still complaints everywhere that it had passed its heyday. In fact, my participation was almost short-lived because of that -- since I was new to the online experience, I took the "death of...!" stuff at face value, and I didn't particularly want to get involved with something that was about to peter out.

But I stayed around long enough to see that whatever it used to be, it was pretty cool at that moment. Dlowan and Craven, to name two, had joined about the same time as me and there was a lot of funny stuff going on.

So one person's "death of" was another person's "birth of", and so it goes.

Heehee...all cultures, and mini cultures like Abuzz et al, have, it seems to me, a myth of a vanished golden age.

But, what I have learned, is that the leaden age you are living through dejectedly, will soon be a vanished golden age too.

Humans be weird....

I wonder if ants and bees and other social beasties tell the new young recruits "ah, but the OLD queen was so much better.....the nest was really ALIVE then, the soldiers knew how to fight, real Amazons they was, woulda cut their breastacles off, had they had 'em, and the WORKERS, they WORKED..............and, in the pub after work, the DISCUSSIONS we had, who should be fed royal jelly to make 'em the new queen, who would get with whom on the mating flight, we really CARED then....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

msolga wrote:
Yes, hear hear!

.. & sometimes you just feel like being part of an stimulating discussion, only to find someone trying drag you into a fight because of something you've said.

Lol!!! That is endemic to political discussions, not just to American political discussions!

But when someone attempts to divert you into defending the Australian government's treatment of Aborigines (defend? As if? Shocked

) in the middle of a (totally unrelated) US politics thread, well ..... it starts to get a bit ridiculous, yes? And yes, I do get turned off. That's the sort of fight I meant.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now I can better see why you folks are so bored when we Americans talk about our politics and our politicians.

Prolly not really as eye glazing, because

a. Your politics seem to have kinda fallen to more right vs a bit less right

(which is simple, though I am sure there are numerous shades of opinion within these "polarities" but they do not appear very visibly here)

b. The names of parties are easier to remember, and of individuals, actually. Americans have the oddest names, sometimes: Scooter Libby!!! Tom DeLay!!! (We reserve REALLY weird names for Governer's General: Garfield Barwick, Zelman Cowan, Ninian Martin Stephen!!!)

c. You people can do pretty much what you want. A sense of worry keeps our eyes on you. A political nuance can get a whole country invaded in your hands!

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

dlowan wrote:
msolga wrote:
Yes, hear hear!

.. & sometimes you just feel like being part of an stimulating discussion, only to find someone trying drag you into a fight because of something you've said.

Lol!!! That is endemic to political discussions, not just to American political discussions!

But when someone attempts to divert you into defending the Australian government's treatment of Aborigines (defend? As if?) in the middle of a (totally unrelated) US politics thread, well ..... it starts to get a bit ridiculous, yes? And yes, I do get turned off. That's the sort of fight I meant.

Indeed. But not an uncommon tactic in bad political debate.

It is kind of a would be tu quoque, eh? But generally misused.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
All considered liberal re American politics. On this board, re political threads, that's homogenous.

Plus, of course, this is not an American board.

Quote:
I didn't think or infer it was. I was speaking from that perspective, which is why I spelled it out rather than left it to be assumed.

Most posters are American, but there's significant numbers of others. It's far from, eh, homogenous.

Quote:
Obviously, if I said I thought it would become homogenous, it would be understood that it is not currently homogenous. Communication has become so tedious.

Thing is, in order to attract more people from around the world, to diversify the range of points of view and perspectives on A2K, we'd need to rise above this Amerocentric framing of all debate.

Quote:
I have agreed with this point, which is why I bring so many items from other areas, as you know. Since most of the sturm and drang here is over American politics, and since that it what most of the comments revealed to be the primary problem--for those who thought there is a problem--I framed it from that perspective purposefully. For such a mild opinion, I am a bit surprised at all the disagreement. Didn't you say most of the problem is the US political polarization? Isn't that Americentric? And, explain if you will, how can it be that a group of people who argue on the same side of issues presented here are not more homogenous than that group plus a group that argues from the other side of the issue?

The us vs them, libs vs cons, Dems vs Reps flamefests Dag mentioned may be tiresome even to you Americans - imagine how discouraged people from elsewhere become!

Quote:
I think most everyone is spent.

I see someone has imagined mentions of impending homogeneity could be someone's way of saying the death of the internet is imminent. Not so with me. The board may go on to do much better. But, I do think it will do so devoid of conservatives. That's no weird threat. Just my opinion.

A2K is more than Politics. And, when a sharp adversary disappears, more productive conversation can go on re nuanced positions. That has been my experience, anyway.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Mind you, Steppenwolf has a point. Forget about left vs right; social conservatives are conspicuously rare here.

Even among rightwingers, the leaning is libertarian. McGentrix, Phoenix, they don't get worked up about gay marriage - if anything, they're on the liberal side of the argument. Women's rights, gay rights, immigration and race - admittedly, those are the counts someone like Lash scores liberal on. I dont know what Georgeob1 thinks about gay marriage, but such things dont seem to preoccupy him much, anyway. Same with Brandon. Foxfyre is the closest we get on social conservatism on the right.

But on the left too, collectivist values are conspicuously absent. Few Old Labour types here (hello Walter), no Linkspartei-type trade union socialists. No communists I know of. But lots of Greens. Libertine individualists all.

There's plenty of leftists in Europe, and I'm guessing Latin-America too, who are socially conservative, and just fight for bread-and-butter issues. Those are not here. And there's not a single nationalist/populist-type leftist that's defined the Left in much of Eastern Europe.

On the socio-economic scale of left to right, welfare-state socialist to free-market libertarian, the spread on this board is broad. But on the values axis of individualist/libertine versus collectivist/conservative, there's pretty much no 'other side', period!

Is it because the web attracts individualists? Is it a class thing (web access still being mostly for the middle classes, in many places)?

Reading this post left me wondering where I would see myself... Hard to tell. I'd definitely go with Green. But that can mean social conservative, in some cases. Doesn't Plaid Cymru for example describe itself as a conservative, left-leaning green party? I guess something like that, I could identify with.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:
About nimh's 'most right-wing' part: the FDP, which he calls 'one of the most right-wing parties', isn't considered particularly right-wing in Germany. 'Right-wing' here implies political Christianity, xenophobia, or both, either of which the FDP is opposed to and working against. We usually classify the FDP as in the middle between the two large parties.

Hah, I see that even the two of you Germans here already disagree about that statement!

When it comes to economic policy, social policy, that whole meat of political discourse, the FDP is to the right of the Christian-Democrats. The CDU (minus Kirchhof experiment) and particularly the CSU are distinctly more welfare-state oriented and statist (what Americans would call 'liberal') than the FDP.

When it comes to cultural issues (religion, civil rights, immigration), for sure, the FDP is to the Christian Democrats' left.

But the FDP itself has clearly laid out which of the two things is more important to them.

Ever since the 80s, they have aligned their loyalties unambiguously (some would say slavishly) with the conservatives: the trusted bywagon of any prospective Christian-Democratic Chancellor, apparently satisfied with defending their wealthy voters' financial interest.

Like Walter says, in that light it's hard to imagine many people not considering today's FDP a right-wing party.

If you look at this year's elections, I definitely consider you at the opposite end of the spectrum. Cultural values barely played a role after all, even immigration only came up in the odd aside of the CSU's Beckstein [sp?]. It was all about the economy. I sympathised, this time, with the strident old-school leftists; you sided with the libertarian reformers. Couldnt be further apart.

Of course, that's all just "nuance", because apparently our opinions are glaringly homogenous...

Hmmmmmmm......but isn't that what we say about American politics? I just did, eg.

For me, frequently it all appears (at party level) just a blur of conservatism, and it is only at times which clearly appear (to me) as crucial, like now, that I especially distinguish their parties. Much of the fighting appears to be about almost nothing.

How different ARE the parties you speak of? I am sure there is ultra right, and soft left, to be sure, but within those groupings, how many REAL points of difference are there?

We all tend to fight about trivia, but the left, in my view, has carried that to an absurdist art form.

For example: I do not know how many here like the Pythons, but in their film, Life of Brian, one of the things skewered is the bickering in the left.

There is a scene when the troupe, who form one Palestinian Liberation party, are crapping upon all the rest of their ilk, who have various similar names. It is hilarious satire.

I went to the film with a house mate, who was one of those ridiculous. comfy little Maoist wanna bees.

I saw the satire as aimed at the entire left.

When we came out, he said: "Man, they sure had those Trots skewered, didn't they?"

That epitomized the madness, to me. (of course I could be wrong, they MIGHT have been after the Trots...lol)

So, I do think lots of our differences seem nuance form afar, and loom large only to us.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now I can better see why you folks are so bored when we Americans talk about our politics and our politicians.

It's not always because you talk about US politics. It's how US politics are discussed. Sometimes there'll just be a link at the start of a thread. With a brief statement to invite comment. The discussion that follows assumes that everyone knows the issue (sometimes) & the politicians/public figures involved (sometimes, not always). Then the predictable liberal/ conservative responses from posters. Which are more about attacking each other than shedding new light on what's happened. So really, it's extremely difficult to participate as an "outsider". Even as an interested observer who wants to know more about what's going on in the US. Your eyes sort of glaze over & you switch off. Off course there have been some excellent US political threads as well. But fewer & further between, of late.

0 Replies

But, given that mostly Americans are here, Msolga, I think that is pretty unavoidable; the link and assumptions part, I mean. The predictability isn't.

For the furriners who stumble upon your Oz politics threads, eg (have I thanked you enough for those, BTW? Now that I no longer drive to work, I do not get to hear AM and PM, unless I stream them later at work, and I rely on your threads to keep me as up to date as I get!) they would be incomprehensible.

We are happy to explain, of course, but so are a lot of the folks here, if we ask.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

. . . Off course there have been some excellent US political threads as well. But fewer & further between, of late.

Maybe it is that excellence Georgeob was referring to in the opening post. The quarreling, obviously, is here to stay.

0 Replies

Is the Politics Forum Winding Down?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know