ILovePhilosophy.com

The degree to which a society censors itself is the degree to which the society doesn’t trust itself.

Let’s translate that.

The degree to which government and government-aligned institutions censor the citizenry is the degree to which the government and such institutions don’t trust the citizenry. And the degree to which the individual citizen accepts this censorship is the degree to which that individual citizen agrees they are not trustworthy.

I remember a time when the Left was against censorship and against big government/institutional authority. I wonder what happened? I think the Left was a political power game and only cared about such things in order to weaken the current non-Leftist powers, and now those powers are weak the Left has no intention of continuing to adhere to its old noble maxims.

Does anyone think left and right still mean anything in politics? I’m genuinely curious.

ExtraCoronas wrote:I remember a time when the Left was against censorship and against big government/institutional authority. I wonder what happened? I think the Left was a political power game and only cared about such things in order to weaken the current non-Leftist powers, and now those powers are weak the Left has no intention of continuing to adhere to its old noble maxims.

Does anyone think left and right still mean anything in politics? I’m genuinely curious.

I hear ya brother. Like legalizing weed. "Where gonna need your balls with that, though." "Sure, hey, who needs 'em?'

I think they do mean something. Left is society based, looking at how we all can get along. Commies, Nazis. Do-gooders. Worried about the planet.

Right is... Well, right historically is simply militarism. The interests of the military. And the traditions and outlook. So that's... That's complicated.

I like Republicanism against leftisim and ambivalent towards right-wingism. Republicanism stands against society, for the individual. But it is not anarchism, remember. Republicanism recognizes that military is necessary and states to fend off the societists, the socialists, the leftists. Protect the interests of capitalism, which is the only way humans have found to regulate power on a massive scale where the individual is put first.

This has often put republicanism at odds with the scoundralism you mention, which is close to my heart, but also has allowed it to exist.

It is time we scoundrels stop bitching and being at the mercy of the governments. We need to take this gift republicans have given us, are giving us, and accumulate capital. This incredible weapon against institutional authority, for individualism. It is clunky and unweildy, and historically been used to favour the Right which is, well, problematic. But it works and it is there.

Republicans use the right to fend off the left and, well, get as rich as possible without establishing institutional authority.

I do mean US Republicanism, btw, that which is related to the republican party. It was a name chosen almost at random, it is not a kind of ideology around the idea of a republic. Democrats, because it's a democracy, republicans, cause it's a republic. Names that conveyed adherence to the political code the masons concocted without commiting to much else.

The leftist response to Assange's arrest? Celebration.

Disgraceful.

Dude that gave us actual footage of jet planes blowing up people.

Gtfoh.

I used to be a liberal of the left but the left are Traitors of High Treason, who want to censor free speech and import all muslims.

I stand alone in a cruel world, the neanderthal pinnacle of evolution itself surrounded by human sapiens.




I want to legalize Guns...therefore I am pro-women's rights. I believe in a woman's right to own 15 guns. I believe islam is against women, but the Feminist Traitors of Treason crave the boot of islam. Tried to help drag queens but they all want to be savages who do crack cocaine. I could go on but wt dr. I am an Evolved Being in an unevolved world.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I like Republicanism against leftisim and ambivalent towards right-wingism. Republicanism stands against society, for the individual. But it is not anarchism, remember. Republicanism recognizes that military is necessary and states to fend off the societists, the socialists, the leftists. Protect the interests of capitalism, which is the only way humans have found to regulate power on a massive scale where the individual is put first.

Earlier the left fought against the repressive social control of the right. You had to sit, walk, work, associate, have sex in certain specific ways. You had be normal. And the right was happy to have this enforced both via the law, social norms, the courts and informally through economic punishment. Then in child rearing via shame and greater use of corporal punishment and control over the choices of children, their own and others. Now the Left has moved in and has its own political correctness and wants control also from childhood on up. Rock and a hard place.

The right is not 'for the individual' in some pure sense. They have happily supported surveillance and drug wars and reduction of individual rights. And their acceptance of the range of individualities is very contricted. It is hard to be free and alive with either the left or the right.

That's fair. It's also why I make the distinction.

But even if you mean to level that accusation against republicanism, that's still fair.

But look at what the republicans got for playing along with the loony military class (let's call it a class of the mind): while Churches or whatever went up and certain social norms were enforced, multi-billion dollar corporations and businesses were being set up that escaped all of that control, as the loonys too had to pay a price for the coalition, and eventually gave rise to our modern society, where artists that would have been considered unacceptablyo bscene become millioinaires, where you can essencially buy whatever you want, where you dress however you want, where having tattoos doesn't bar you from any job and freedom of speech has taken on a whole new level of existence.

Republicans don't fight against. They work with and wait for the ill to rot and fall away. Like Kissinger with China.

Any person that has the complaints you are expositing now regarding the right MUST also admit that things today are infinitely better than 50, 30, even 20 years ago.

You don't gotta worry about the reactionaries. Just pay them lip service and they'll let you produce their very downfall. Worry about the dudes that want to replace them.

Capital is power. That's just the truf. And the laws of the US protect capitalism, as they stand.

What drives leftists crazy is that capital is power that is there for ANYBODY to pick up. There is no social or caste or education or birth requirement to accumulate capital. Anybody can and does do it that bothers to put in the work. If you think the work it takes is too hard, please consider that the level of power you acquire is comparable to the power princes and lords and bishops used to have. A level of power that used to take generations and much bloodshed to be acquired. It is not so bad. You famously don't even have to go to school to achieve it.

I know more than one person that was born in the most destitute poverty you can imagine that started leading companies. Capitalism works.

But leftists are uncomfortable with that. If just ANYBODY can acquire capital, how do you enforce the new and improved rules of behaviour? The old guard, church goers and whatnot, well Nietzsche said it: they just want to die. We, republicans, are allowing them to and they seem quite happy with it. They don't anymore wanna keep ruling everything, because they never wanted to in the first place. They just wanted to be allowed to die.

Capitalism itself doesn't dictate who will be in power. It just dictates that only he who can accumulate capital (or, bien sure, she) will have power, and also that that will be the ONLY requirement for it.

So long as the US stands, so long as republicans succeed.

If you want republicanism to be more people friendly, less restrictive, than work with it. Help out. We all want a more fun society, a less up-tight one. Capitalism has the results: Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Big Daddy Kane, 21 Savage. As it is, you are leaving us no choice but to ally with the old guard

Capitalism=garbage.
Communism=garbage.

Don't be a Republicuck.

You see, this is what I have to deal with. Bad people on both sides, both sides.

Socialism, as I define it, is light taxation, 10% tax on middle class, 20% tax on the rich, laws for the poor to only have at most 1 child. Why can't anyone take the reasonable road of socialism?

ExtraCoronas wrote:The degree to which a society censors itself is the degree to which the society doesn’t trust itself.

Let’s translate that.

The degree to which government and government-aligned institutions censor the citizenry is the degree to which the government and such institutions don’t trust the citizenry. And the degree to which the individual citizen accepts this censorship is the degree to which that individual citizen agrees they are not trustworthy.

I remember a time when the Left was against censorship and against big government/institutional authority. I wonder what happened? I think the Left was a political power game and only cared about such things in order to weaken the current non-Leftist powers, and now those powers are weak the Left has no intention of continuing to adhere to its old noble maxims.

Does anyone think left and right still mean anything in politics? I’m genuinely curious.

I remember these times too, and tend to insist - whether prudently or foolishly - that these times have not changed, but people have begun to misuse the terms i.e. the "authoritarian left" are no leftists.

I find myself asking the question of what power does to a political "wing".

In a "chicken or egg" kind of way, is it the case that gaining power turns one authoritarian or does becoming authoritarian gain one power?
Either way, however, due to the origin of the terms "right" and "left" wing, my afore-mentioned insistence holds true.

The problem of the left is that, as the voice of change from the status quo advocated by the right, once the change has been realised - it becomes the new status quo. The successful leftist thereby becomes a rightist. An unsuccessful leftist could in theory be as authoritarian as they like, but this will hold no sway as long as they have no power. Authoritarianism becomes a realised problem only once it is adopted by the powers that be, and the support of the powers that be are (by derivation) those on the right.

So you see, the left effectively advocating censorship are in power, and are thus right. However as long as they still identify with their former underdog status in favour of change, even after the change has occurred, they are incorrect to do so.

Left and right still mean something in politics if one is faithful to the origins of the terms. The irony of me, as a leftist "of old", appealing to tradition in this way is not lost on me, but in practice one may be left wing in some ways and right in others. When it comes to definitions, I find myself to be highly conservative, a right wing authoritarian - surely this is the whole point of definitions: to remain steadfast or else we no longer remain on the same page when it comes to meaning. To change the meanings of words is arguably inevitable, but to the degree that this is allowed is the degree to which meaningless or at least confusion is permitted.

The confusion that you are voicing is a result of changing definitions being permitted. Do we allow the definition of left to be inverted with the right? I've come across many people who do so, and find themselves changing from leftist to rightist, but for now I refuse to do so. Either we all change to the same page or we all remain on the same page, or left and right will continue to not mean anything in politics.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:You don't gotta worry about the reactionaries. Just pay them lip service and they'll let you produce their very downfall. Worry about the dudes that want to replace them.

This is a fair point. A couple of provisos: 1) they weren't reactionaries, they were the norm. IOW a lot of conservative ideas were held by what were called liberals then. You can see it in films of how people moved, even, in the 50s. We are talking about tremendous restriction at a very basic level. The left of center were more able to accept that people moved from this then the right. 2) It is not clear to me which end of the spectrum will take over.

That said, I agree, and we must stop thinking that either of these two sides we are supposed to choose between is healthy. I don't mean to eliminate critique of the left by saying the right was worse or just as bad. I just want to point out the set of political correctnesses so we don't just flip back and forth forever between them. The two party system is the perfect bad cop good cop to make us behave this way. With the right seeing one cop as the bad one and the left the other, rather than getting it is all a game to make us think these are the choices, anything not in these parties is loopy, and our hope is getting our one of the two parties/ideologies in the white box.

It is horrifying to see the Left's way of doing things now.

Ostracizing Martina Navratilova for not liking that people with men's bodies are entering women's tennis and it isn't fair. The rage, binary thinking, absolutism, and viciousness out there, and often with children in schools and social groups, is terrible and so goes against the good parts of the left when I was younger.

ExtraCoronas wrote:The degree to which a society censors itself is the degree to which the society doesn’t trust itself.

Let’s translate that.

The degree to which government and government-aligned institutions censor the citizenry is the degree to which the government and such institutions don’t trust the citizenry. And the degree to which the individual citizen accepts this censorship is the degree to which that individual citizen agrees they are not trustworthy.

I remember a time when the Left was against censorship and against big government/institutional authority. I wonder what happened? I think the Left was a political power game and only cared about such things in order to weaken the current non-Leftist powers, and now those powers are weak the Left has no intention of continuing to adhere to its old noble maxims.

Does anyone think left and right still mean anything in politics? I’m genuinely curious.

To me, freedom of speech, and all the freedoms, isn't left or right, in fact it's anti-left and anti-right.
Left and right are both opposite forms of authoritarianism.
Theoretically the left is an egalitarian authoritarianism, or, somewhat alternatively, an authoritarianism that's pro-outgroup and woman and anti-ingroup and man, and the right is an elitist authoritarianism and pro-ingroup and man, but in practice the left ends up looking a lot like the right, because they're both being controlled by the elite.
The differences are mostly cosmetic.