-->
@bmdrocks21
Left and right, I need clarity.
Posts
Total:
286
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you going to say something intelligent, or are you just going to continue straw-manning my points and calling me "snark queen"?
“Always ask yourself: "What will happen if I say nothing?”
― Kamand Kojouri
-->
@PressF4Respect
continue straw-manning my points
Dude, you literally invoked Godwin's law at post #66 and turned the rest of the thread into a snarkfest.
That's some chutzpah you got there buddy.
MOD NOTE
I am pleased that this thread has sparked lively debates and discussions. That said, please remember that there are rules. We have received numerous reports from this thread. This is a friendly reminder to keep things civil and keep things relevant to the OP.
-->
@sadolite
Thanks for your interpretation
No prob
-->
@Greyparrot
That's some chutzpah you got there buddy.
Ooooooo chutzpah
Those are some very interesting words you got there, buddy.
Now if only they were used to say something substantive...
-->
@PressF4Respect
Now if only they were used to say something substantive...
I did NAZI that coming...
-->
@sadolite
You are either a slave with a master and no rights the ultimate oppression or it's every man for himself only the strong survive the ultimate freedom, answer to no one.
This actually agrees with my interpretation of the wings.
At the extreme end of left-wing what happens is that all are tamed and suppressed such that noone can harm anyone, except the leaders who can harm all.
At the extreme end of right-wing all are free to prey on each other but without fail, there is a guaranteed endgame of the rich ruthlessly ruling over the poor and social outcasts generation after generation until eventually the impoverished and abused combine to riot and overthrow the elite.
-->
@Greyparrot
I did NAZI that coming...
Wow... so creative... so original... so intellectually stimulating 👏🏿👏🏾👏🏽👏🏼👏🏻👏
-->
@sadolite
I need to know what the most far left thinking person would want in terms of a govt and what the most far right thinking person would want in terms of a govt
If I had to give this a shot:
The most Far Left person would want a lot of government intervention in economic affairs, and want no government restrictions in personal affairs
The most Far Left person would want a lot of government intervention in economic affairs, and want no government restrictions in personal affairs
The most Far Right person would want no government restrictions in economic affairs, and want a lot of government intervention in personal affairs.
-->
@Imabench
Right wing libertarians and left-wing prudes+jingoists destroy your angle.
-->
@RationalMadman
@sadolite
You are either a slave with a master and no rights the ultimate oppression or it's every man for himself only the strong survive the ultimate freedom, answer to no one.This actually agrees with my interpretation of the wings.At the extreme end of left-wing what happens is that all are tamed and suppressed such that noone can harm anyone, except the leaders who can harm all.At the extreme end of right-wing all are free to prey on each other but without fail, there is a guaranteed endgame of the rich ruthlessly ruling over the poor and social outcasts generation after generation until eventually the impoverished and abused combine to riot and overthrow the elite.
Except i showed how the right wing is for a police/military state that enforces social restrictions and the status qup... while blm and defund the police showed that the left does not accept masters that can harm all.
The left wants change, the right wants more of the same. Progress vs stability and tradition. Both can be good or bad.
@rational madman.
Your unfortunate result on the right is based on economics and policy outcomes, while your unfortunate result on the left is on politics and assumptions of foul play. Clearly you acknowledge where policy superiority lies. Perhaps if the left wasnt in a costly war over policy and reality it could focus on purging its internal demons.
I've learned all that could be learned here. You may now bicker amongst yourselves about completely unrelated topics.
-->
@sadolite
It's better to view "left" and "right" are mere categories of political affiliation rather than a scale of some sort, to map out political views on a one dimensional compass is an insane oversimplification of reality.
Neither the "left" or the "right" are unified groups, even if you removed one half people would still tear each other apart.
-->
@triangle.128k
Maybe so, but in the end left is the only way to go from total anarchy. From Pure anarchy you either go to total totalitarian or you step by step get there eventually. Simply look at US history and the gradual move it is taking to eventual total totalitarian rule. We didn't start at pure anarchy but we have moved left and will continue to do so We are no longer governed anymore, we have entered into being ruled. We are just one or two generations away with the current forces at work and the ignorance of the people pushing it along by thinking govt will improve their lot in life. The country will never move less left. I don't say move to the right because in my opinion there is no right. Just more or less left.
68 days later
The most right wing society would be the society with the greatest amount of heirarchy/traditional social institutions. The most left wing society would be the society with the least.
-->
@Username
The most right wing society would be the society with the greatest amount of heirarchy/traditional social institutions. The most left wing society would be the society with the least.
Best definition yet!
-->
@lady3keys
Thanks. Welcome to the site.
-->
@Username
Jordan Peterson examined countries that tried to eliminate gender hierarchy. The results from scientific data from Scandinavian countries showed that as societies become more gender-equal in their social and political policies, men and women become more different in certain aspects, rather than more similar.
Had you asked any group of social scientists — left-wing, centrist, conservative (if you could find them) — 30 years ago “Will egalitarian social policies in wealthy countries produce men and women who are more similar or more different?” the majority would have certainly said, “more similar.” And, to some degree, that has happened. Women have entered the workforce en masse, and are participating at levels approaching or exceeding equality in many of the domains that were male majority prior to the 1960s. But …
And this is a major but.
We seem to have reached the point of diminishing, or even reversing returns. Over the last five decades or so, psychologists have aggregated great numbers of descriptions of personality traits, using adjectives, phrases, and sentences, throwing virtually every descriptor contained in human language into the mix, in a remarkably atheoretical manner. The method? Describe people every which way imaginable, and then use large samples and powerful statistics to sort out the resulting mess. The results? Something approaching a consensus among psychologists expert in measurement, known as psychometricians (or, less technically, personality psychologists). The latter happens to be my field, in addition to clinical psychology. When you ask thousands of people hundreds of questions (or ask them to rate themselves using descriptive adjectives such as “kind,” “competitive,” “happy,” “anxious,” “creative,” “diligent,” etc.) powerful statistics can identify patterns. People who describe themselves as “kind” tend not to consider themselves “competitive,” for example, but are likely to accept “cooperative” and “caring.” Likewise, creative types might regard themselves as “curious” and “inventive,” while the diligent types are also “dutiful” and “orderly.”
Once a relatively standard model had been agreed upon, and been deemed reliable and valid, then differences, such as those between the sexes, could be investigated. What emerged? First, men and women are more similar than they are different. Even when men and women are most different — in those cultures where they differ most, and along those trait dimensions where they differ most — they are more similar than different. However, the differences that do exist are large enough so that they play an important role in determining or at least affecting important life outcomes, such as occupational choice.
Where are the largest differences? Men are less agreeable (more competitive, harsher, tough-minded, skeptical, unsympathetic, critically-minded, independent, stubborn). This is in keeping with their proclivity, also documented cross-culturally, to manifest higher rates of violence and antisocial or criminal behavior, such that incarceration rates for men vs women approximate 10:1. Women are higher in negative emotion, or neuroticism. They experience more anxiety, emotional pain, frustration, grief, self-conscious doubt, and disappointment. This seems to emerge at puberty.
There are other sex differences as well, but they aren’t as large, excepting that of interest: men are comparatively more interested in things and women in people. This is the largest psychological difference between men and women yet identified. And these differences drive occupational choice, particularly at the extremes. Engineers, for example, tend to be those who are not only interested in things, but who are more interested in things than most people, men or women.
The best explanation, so far, for the fact of the growing differences is that there are two reasons for the differences between men and women: biology and culture. If you minimize the cultural differences (as you do with egalitarian social policies) then you allow the biological differences to manifest themselves fully. I have seen social scientists struggle to offer a cultural explanation, but I haven’t heard any such hypothesis that is the least bit credible, and have been unable to formulate one myself.
There are also those who insist that we just haven’t gone far enough in our egalitarian attempts — that even Scandinavia and The Netherlands, arguably the world’s most egalitarian societies, are still rampantly patriarchal — but that doesn’t explain why the sex differences have grown, rather than shrunk, as those cultures have become demonstrably more equal in social policy.
-->
@Username
HUH I think it would be just the opposite
-->
@sadolite
Then your view of the political compass is backwards
-->
@Greyparrot
That's an interesting phenomenon, though I don't know enough about the study to confirm or deny it's validity. But legal equality for men and women still increases the amount of equality for men and women, and your article admits as much.
-->
@Username
It increases equal opportunity while manifesting unequal outcomes trending up, according to the study.
Left is the side of equality. Individuals are working as a group and not as individual individuals to contribute to the nation. Communism is left because the people is seen as one entity, not as individual persons.
Right is the side of hierachy and individual competition. Capitalism is right(I say it unironically).
The more need for the people to unite, the more leftist there is. The more need for the people to compete, the more rightist there is.
-->
@Username
Or is yours backwards? I view left leaning thinking as all encompassing govt control of everything and everyone and right wing thinking as all personal responsibility for everything and minimal govt interference. Our differences obviously come from the perception of what hierarchy is to you and what it is to me. To me hierarchy is an unaccountable govt with no limits on its power over me and to you, in my opinion, is anyone who makes more money than you that you can't manipulate and bend to your will.
-->
@Greyparrot
Women have entered the workforce en masse, and are participating at levels approaching or exceeding equality in many of the domains that were male majority prior to the 1960s
-->
@sadolite
I view left leaning thinking as all encompassing govt control of everything and everyone and right wing thinking as all personal responsibility for everything and minimal govt interference.
Is an abortion ban left wing? How about not letting gay people get married? How about closing borders? How about protectionism? Why is Fascism right-wing?
To me hierarchy is an unaccountable govt with no limits on its power over me and to you, in my opinion, is anyone who makes more money than you that you can't manipulate and bend to your will.
You have a very limited understanding of what heirarchy is. Heirarchy isn't just present in government or economics. Heirarchy is any time one person or group is allowed or forced to be above another. It's not restricted to authoritarianism or libertarianism.
You're wrong to think that my definition of heirarchy is restricted to the wealthy. I oppose unjust wealth, but I also oppose ethnic nationalism, imperialism, and gender traditionalism because I oppose heirarchy, and thus, usually oppose the right.
-->
@sadolite
Well said. It's the elites in government that hold the real power backed by guns. Hard-working people can only hope to bribe the powerful elites in DC for any relief from government oppression and tyranny.
It's just too bad the establishments in both parties support that hierarchy, making this entire thread pointless.
-->
@Username
Women have entered the workforce en masse, and are participating at levels approaching or exceeding equality in many of the domains that were male majority prior to the 1960s
Yes but the article clearly states they don't enter the same kinds of work equally. No equal outcomes.
Men continue to dominate the high risk and thing-oriented fields while women overwhelmingly dominate the low risk and people-oriented fields in nations with equal opportunities.
“As I read through the report, in so many ways I connected the findings with my own experiences,” says Michele Meyer-Shipp, KPMG’s Chief Diversity Officer. “I, like many women, was taught growing up that if you work really hard you’ll be successful.
I was never explicitly taught that there was more to it – like speaking up and taking risk.”
Higher levels of testosterone are associated with a greater appetite for risk in women. The link between risk aversion and testosterone predicted career choice: individuals who were high in testosterone and low in risk aversion chose riskier careers in finance.
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok so now I don't even understand how this is relevant to the initial topic.
Why women choose different jobs and whether this can be attributed to genetic or enviornmental factors is extremely complicated, and I'm not going to pretend like I have the knowledge neccesary to participate in that discussion.