Defining the Left and Right

[Brian]

I agree! How disappointing.

Want to have your cake and eat it, too?

[zerostao]

woof

Edited February 20, 2018 by zerostao

[Brian]

Try this. Look at an image of the original US constitution. See how obvious the Founding Fathers were; 

consider the font size of We the People  compared with the rest of the text

and

We the People is placed at the top Left  of the page. 

 

The Founding Fathers placed We the People at the top and at the Left.

 

It is at the LEFT because it is at the beginning of the document and English is written from left to right. The modern political delineation of "left" and "right" began to came out of France very shortly thereafter and had to do with who sat where in the National Assembly (the supporters of a revolution sat to the King's left).

 

I wouldn't read much into the left/right placement of the text but I would put great emphasis on its prominence and preeminence.

[Stosh]

Handwriting analysis suggests that this trend can be explained by ego and excessive optimism which rapidly diminishes,  (as well as the writing all the to the far right edge indicates a lack of foresight.)  

[Trunk]

This discussion can be had by many angles. 

 

One of the ways, and the way I think is more productive, is to identify values that we hold as individuals.  I think that we'd find we have much common ground that would provide a basis for communication and constructive action.  I am concerned that rigidly defining left / right only falsely divides us further.

 

Another angle of approach is to explore cultural differences of red / blue states and some years ago I found this documentary, "Red State", to be very interesting.

 

 

Dvd description from amazon:

Distraught over the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, filmmaker Michael Shea set out with a camera crew to travel the US and gain a deeper understanding of why so many Americans chose to reelect George Bush to a second term. In his journey through 22 Red States, Shea takes an honest and objective look at the issues that drove the vote. As the interviews build, viewers become acutely aware of just how vast the divide is between those who reside in America's Red and Blue States. Shea allows those he talks with to elegantly portray their own version of utopia...

[zerostao]

z

Edited February 20, 2018 by zerostao

[liminal_luke]

We want strong leaders with enough guts and gumption to get things done.  Obama seemed like that kind of leader, and I think that`s why he was elected.  (Seemed being the operative word because the hope he inspired never bore fruit.)  Trump also appears to be that kind of leader, and I believe that`s why he was elected.  He seems to stand for something.  Personally I don`t much like what he stands for and wish he`d sit down (not die, mind you, just sit down), but I can`t deny his charisma. Bernie also gives the impression of having real values, and might have gone far.  Guess we`ll never know.

 

But Hillary?  Nothing much to get excited about there.  Her only real draw was not being Trump, and heck...I could`ve done that. 

Edited March 19, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Brian]

We want strong leaders with enough guts and gumption to get things done. Obama seemed like that kind of leader, and I think that`s why he was elected. (Seemed being the operative word because the hope he inspired never bore fruit.) Trump also appears to be that kind of leader, and I believe that`s why he was elected. He`s seems to stand for something. Personally I don`t much like what he stands for and wish he`d sit down (not die, mind you, just sit down), but I can`t deny his charisma. Bernie also gives the impression of having real values, and might have gone far. Guess we`ll never know.

 

But Hillary? Nothing much to get excited about there. Her only real draw was not being Trump, and heck...I could`ve done that.

I would have voted for you.

[liminal_luke]

I would have voted for you.

 

Wow, thanks!  Fortunately, I`ve no such aspirations.  Awhile back Taomeow mentioned she might run.  Maybe there will be a Taomeow/Brian ticket in our nations future?  Now that would give us something to write about...

[Aetherous]

I would have voted for you.

 

Liminal Luke versus Clinton? She would lose again.

[MooNiNite]

Democrats

 

Communism over freedom

 

Republicans

 

Freedom over communism

[Trunk]

 

This happened yesterday 5/6 at Trader Joe's in Reston, VA: A Muslim woman (who wishes to remain anonymous) noticed a woman was in a hurry, she offered to let her go in front of her in line. That's when she started talking bad about another Muslim woman in the store (who was wearing niqab) and asking why she didn't cover as well. She replied it was a choice and the woman didn't believe her and said "I wish they didn't let you in the country."

[cold]

It makes no sense, but is a sad statement on the state of our world!

[Trunk]

new Pew Research Poll results:

 

Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions

Republicans increasingly say colleges have negative impact on U.S.

 

Quote

 

Republicans and Democrats offer starkly different assessments of the impact of several of the nation’s leading institutions – including the news media, colleges and universities and churches and religious organizations – and in some cases, the gap in these views is significantly wider today than it was just a year ago.

...

A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (58%) now say that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, up from 45% last year.  By contrast, most Democrats and Democratic leaners (72%) say colleges and universities have a positive effect, which is little changed from recent years.

 

The national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults, ...

 

 

Curious about the views of those on this forum re: whether colleges & universities have a positive / negative effect on the country?

 

Graph of other results of the poll:

[Aetherous]

23 minutes ago, Trunk said:

Curious about the views of those on this forum re: whether colleges & universities have a positive / negative effect on the country?

 

I'm a grad student, and will later go on for a terminal level doctorate...and lean right in some ways, as you know.

My assumption about those polled is that they see college students graduate, then go work as baristas and Chipotle burrito bowl artistes. It looks very useless to spend four+ years just to wind up where you could have been in the first place. Whereas they themselves probably did a skilled trade (like framing houses) or apprenticeship (like electrician), and earn multiple times what the college graduate makes in a short amount of time.

So that's one aspect, and is a generalization. Of course there are some people who went to college who get better jobs...some (MDs).

Slightly tied in with it is their disagreement with the overall opinions of college students, who tend to be liberal. So they probably look at it and say, "If these kids are getting an education, it's not making them critical thinkers" for the two reasons of 1) not coming out with a decent job, and 2) having opinions which those who were polled think are dumb. So, the "education" itself looks poor.

It's also blatantly obvious how the education system attempts to indoctrinate students into liberal ideologies. While becoming educated is great, forcing certain beliefs, and also brainwashing, are not great. In some campuses there is an environment of intolerance for beliefs other than what the herd adheres to. UC Berkeley is like this, from what I've seen in videos, but also heard from individual accounts of students who are currently there. People are scared to say something unpopular.

In my personal experience...I'm going to school for what I'm passionate about, and due to my own weaknesses, have the hardest time taking a career that's anything less than that. There's a chance I might not be financially successful at it, which would make all the schooling look like a failure (although to me it wouldn't be). I also have many days when I think, "I should have just done any apprenticeship, and be making an actual income like a grown man".

So...I think it's more nuanced than Republicans worshiping stupidity, which is probably how it appears to those on the left.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Aetherous

[liminal_luke]

My own education hasn`t resulted in what anybody would think of as stunning financial success, but I don`t regret it for a minute.  The world is an amazing place and learning about it is worthwhile, even if that learning doesn`t automatically translate into a huge paycheck.  Of course, people have to make a living and there`s every reason to be practical and devote oneself to something that will make that possible.  

 

I will say however that some of the best learning I`ve done has been on my own.  Intelligent self-study trumps classroom learning everytime because then you`re following your own enthusiasm rather than treading down a path provided for you by someone else.  It all has to do with a little something I learned about in Psychology 101: intrinsic motivation.

Edited July 11, 2017 by liminal_luke

[26sol]

There is no left right divide in authority,authority is right and far right.Authority is there to maintain power for feudalists,it has done so successfully for thousands of years.The so called left parties are modern neoliberal(look at Greece,Us,Italy and so on) and the right ones are neoliberal with fascist highlights. The right left division is only true among the common people.The rights are cynical survival machines,the left are wishfull thinkers and idealists(not that black and white just being spartan).

The closest mindset to nature is the right wing open market mindset, big fish eats small no compassion,no virtue,the only importand thing is existence for nature ,power for feudalist.This has worked and will work for ever(for nature),but this is not living,this is surviving.There is also one derailing from nature of big importance.There is no authority in nature,there is leadership.The most capable,the strongest,the smartest is proven by constand trial and becomes leader,whereas in human world the ones that assumed power millenia ago,kept it with the use of nepotism,authority and religion.

  I believe nature is only part of Tao.I believe that Tao is not only about existence but also about love compassion and wholeness.I believe that human's challenge is not to just survive but live with love and compassion towards nature and each other.

  The left wing is a response to the lack of compassion of the right,its very healthy but its full of wishfull thinking and lacks realism,still a beam of light though.

  I am an anarcho atomist, ατομο(atom) in Greek means:no further divided, also means person.I believe being an atom(person) is the most importand thing in the spirit path,meaning being ones true self.Every single human is in his/her own page regarding spiritual evolution ,therefore there is no universal manual for enlightenment no religion that works for everyone,it worked for the one that came up with it but not for everyone.Same thing applies to cosmic life,no rigid system can apply for the whole of the people without individuality being compromised.

Edited July 30, 2017 by 26sol

[Lost in Translation]

Left equals bigger, more powerful central government.

Right equals smaller central government with greater emphasis on local government or individual accountability.

 

Taken to the ultimate extreme, Left equals all-powerful central government with zero personal liberty.

Taken to the ultimate extreme, Right equals anarchy.

 

USSR or Walking Dead. It's your choice.

 

 

[Spotless]

When humans get together they naturally like law - the denser the population the more regard for law. Basically lots of people mean lots of laws in order to make general freedom and interaction palatable: barking and noise laws so that close neighbors can have some peace from noisy neighbors. Thus the more rural areas are conservative and the more dense areas are progressive.

 

Oddly the Right is in action Yin - it is conservative and generally not outgoing and creative - it is protective and controlling - tidy. It will easily go to war and supports jails and strong long sentences. It is more incline to a lynching and a nationalistic protectionist stance. Keep the nest clean, tell the boys what they want to hear but protect every morsel of the credit card. Backroom deals, cold alley ways - everything is better in the shade - single mindedness - the nurturer of what it believes it possesses.

 

The left in action is Yang - creative and empowering and willing to go for it in new things - it is messy. It will consider new ways and supports consideration of circumstance and negotiation. It will stand against a lynch mob and take them all on - hang in there while being spat upon and shit on by the group inertias. Yang likes the light, open speaking - it can stand amid the fires and enjoy them and fight for their rights to burn brightly along side the others each different in his or her own light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Spotless

[Trunk]

Interview with John Boehner about the Republican Party, speaking freely now that he's retired.

[Trunk]

 here is someone who is trying to bridge the gap with thoughtfulness and humanity.

 

 

[Aetherous]

20 hours ago, Trunk said:

 here is someone who is trying to bridge the gap with thoughtfulness and humanity.

 

I watched the entire interview yesterday, and didn't see where you got that. Maybe because in her show she doesn't openly attack ideas she disagrees with, but rather just presents the people with those ideas and sort of lets the audience come to their own conclusion (I haven't seen her show).

Her demeanor and attitude, in addition to her words in this interview about Trump voters for instance, struck me in the exact opposite way of "bridging the gap".

I saw a phrase today used to describe Saturday Night Live's liberal cold opens: "self satisfied". I realized that's the best way to describe how Sarah Silverman has behaved, too. In fact, it seems from my perspective that 95% of liberals behave this way.

From my point of view, it's as if she thinks she's at the pinnacle of morality and intelligence, and is looking down upon those she disagrees with, and even feigning virtue by making her tv show and including them. Mocking them subtly, and pretending to be inclusive in order to feel more self righteous.

I would think every long term spiritual practitioner has developed their wisdom enough to see through the facade of "self satisfaction"...hopefully primarily in themselves.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Aetherous

[Trunk]

 

 here she is visiting the family she talked about in the prior interview.   clip from an episode 

[Aetherous]

Thanks for giving a glimpse into the show. I think the love portrayed is very superficial, and the purpose of using that family is to defame people she disagrees with. It seems that I was right based on her interview.

[ralis]

11 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

I watched the entire interview yesterday, and didn't see where you got that. Maybe because in her show she doesn't openly attack ideas she disagrees with, but rather just presents the people with those ideas and sort of lets the audience come to their own conclusion (I haven't seen her show).

Her demeanor and attitude, in addition to her words in this interview about Trump voters for instance, struck me in the exact opposite way of "bridging the gap".

I saw a phrase today used to describe Saturday Night Live's liberal cold opens: "self satisfied". I realized that's the best way to describe how Sarah Silverman has behaved, too. In fact, it seems from my perspective that 95% of liberals behave this way.

From my point of view, it's as if she thinks she's at the pinnacle of morality and intelligence, and is looking down upon those she disagrees with, and even feigning virtue by making her tv show and including them. Mocking them subtly, and pretending to be inclusive in order to feel more self righteous.

I would think every long term spiritual practitioner has developed their wisdom enough to see through the facade of "self satisfaction"...hopefully primarily in themselves.

 

What is your basis for the above in bold? A generalized assumption for certain.