US Representative Shot

[Jamzmania]

'Left-leaning' being the thing there. Based on what he's written in terms of his politcal views, I think it's pretty safe to put him square in the progressive, populist wing of the Democrats. Left-of-centre sure, but the guy was no Marxist or anarchist or what have you.

Left of center compared to what? He seems like a generic centrist unless you maintain that the United States represents the entirety of the world/the political spectrum.

Given that this happened in the United States, using United States definitions would be entirely appropriate.

[Mavorpen]

Left of center compared to what? He seems like a generic centrist unless you maintain that the United States represents the entirety of the world/the political spectrum.

Given that this happened in the United States, using United States definitions would be entirely appropriate.

Huh, so the United States is so great that it can warp reality and make nonsensical definitions legitimate.

[Jamzmania]

Given that this happened in the United States, using United States definitions would be entirely appropriate.

Huh, so the United States is so great that it can warp reality and make nonsensical definitions legitimate.

The definitions makes sense, you simply choose not to understand them. That's not our problem, that's yours.

[Gallia-]

Huh, so the United States is so great that it can warp reality and make nonsensical definitions legitimate.

Do you believe that politics has substantial universal truths or something?

It is decided entirely by the subjective norms and values of a particular place.

[Mavorpen]

Huh, so the United States is so great that it can warp reality and make nonsensical definitions legitimate.

The definitions makes sense, you simply choose not to understand them. That's not our problem, that's yours.

How does it make sense to arbitrarily shift the entire political spectrum and deny centuries worth of philosophical thought just because of what you you feel like what "left-wing" means?

[Gallia-]

How does it make sense to arbitrarily shift the entire political spectrum

Does an invention of the 18th century French National Assembly really count as some kind of unique universal insight?

The United States itself is older than the "political spectrum".

and deny centuries worth of philosophical thought

You're doing that right now.

just because of what you you feel like what "left-wing" means?

What makes your definition any better than his? There's nothing universal to the concept of "left" or "right" wing. Just look at how Girondists shifted from being radical leftists to ultra-rightists and were executed for it during the Reign of Terror.

[Mavorpen]

Huh, so the United States is so great that it can warp reality and make nonsensical definitions legitimate.

Do you believe that politics has substantial universal truths or something?

No.

It is decided entirely by the subjective norms and values of a particular place.

Never denied this, which is, of course, why I have yet to also deny that this person is considered to be "left-wing" generally among the general American population. I just see no reason to effectively appeal to ignorance of the general population pertaining to very defined philosophical thought.

[Zanera]

The definitions makes sense, you simply choose not to understand them. That's not our problem, that's yours.

How does it make sense to arbitrarily shift the entire political spectrum and deny centuries worth of philosophical thought just because of what you you feel like what "left-wing" means?

Because then it applies very, very well to an American that was influenced by American politics who did something in America.

[Mavorpen]

How does it make sense to arbitrarily shift the entire political spectrum

Does an invention of the 18th century French National Assembly really count as some kind of unique universal insight?

If you read the rest of my post, you'd find an answer to this question.

[Mavorpen]

How does it make sense to arbitrarily shift the entire political spectrum and deny centuries worth of philosophical thought just because of what you you feel like what "left-wing" means?

Because then it applies very, very well to an American that was influenced by American politics who did something in America.

I mean sure, if you want to arbitrarily redefine words, you can make any word apply to anyone. I don't see any actual worth in that.

[The Widening Gyre]

Left of center compared to what? He seems like a generic centrist unless you maintain that the United States represents the entirety of the world/the political spectrum.

Given that this happened in the United States, using United States definitions would be entirely appropriate.

Which still wouldn't be leftist. He fits pretty squarely into the progressive wing of the Democrats. Jill Stein and the Greens are probably to the left of him, and then you have actual socialists to the left of them, like the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

[Jamzmania]

Given that this happened in the United States, using United States definitions would be entirely appropriate.

Which still wouldn't be leftist. He fits pretty squarely into the progressive wing of the Democrats. Jill Stein and the Greens are probably to the left of him, and then you have actual socialists to the left of them, like the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

If he's on the left, he's a leftist.

[Gallia-]

Do you believe that politics has substantial universal truths or something?

No.

Then why are you saying that it does?

It is decided entirely by the subjective norms and values of a particular place.

Never denied this,

just because of what you you feel like what "left-wing" means?

which is, of course, why I have yet to also deny that this person is considered to be "left-wing" generally among the general American population.

I don't know anything about his positions, so I can't say whether he is a progressive or not. He supports Bernie Sanders, who is anti-free trade, and thus a rightist. He is also a Democratic Party member, which is a progressive party, but the GOP is also progressive because it supports free trade policies (although paleoconservatism exists in the GOP). I do not know where he stood on any other major issues, like immigration reform, but the GOP and Democrats are both progressive on immigration (the GOP was more progressive during the 1980s, while the Democrats adopted many of their positions in the '90s and '00s).

I just see no reason to effectively appeal to ignorance of the general population pertaining to very defined philosophical thought.

There is nothing "very defined" about "left" and "right".

That's the point you seem to be missing. Quite conspicuously.

If you read the rest of my post, you'd find an answer to this question.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the "political spectrum" is a constant shifting continuum. Positions which were once conservative are now progressive, and likewise, and the definitions of those positions and their placement on the political spectrum vary from individual to individual.

You are arguing for a concrete answer where none exists.

[Zanera]

Because then it applies very, very well to an American that was influenced by American politics who did something in America.

I mean sure, if you want to arbitrarily redefine words, you can make any word apply to anyone. I don't see any actual worth in that.

The American version of these terms would fit better in the context of America, because this occurred in America and was influenced by American politics. They aren't necessarily arbitrary if they can be easily redefined to accurately talk about American politics.

[The Widening Gyre]

Which still wouldn't be leftist. He fits pretty squarely into the progressive wing of the Democrats. Jill Stein and the Greens are probably to the left of him, and then you have actual socialists to the left of them, like the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

If he's on the left, he's a leftist.

Generally the advocacy of revolutionary politics is the dividing line between the left and the centre (and the right and centre-right). By that definition he's pretty squarely in the centre. Most of his politics revolve around reform, not revolution.

[Nulla Bellum]

So that's a yes, you did lie.

And I'm well aware that you don't care about reality. That seems pretty evident.

Yes, I've been had. He was actually an ultraconservative. Obviously No True Leftist™ would do something bad.

He never Lysenko'd a wheat harvest into a famine, but I'm sure he maintained his left-wing street cred regardless.

[Mavorpen]

Then why are you saying that it does?

Easy, I'm not.

I don't know anything about his positions, so I can't say whether he is a progressive or not. He supports Bernie Sanders, who is anti-free trade, and thus a rightist. He is also a Democratic Party member, which is a progressive party, but the GOP is also progressive because it supports free trade policies (although paleoconservatism exists in the GOP). I do not know where he stood on any other major issues, like immigration reform, but the GOP and Democrats are both progressive on immigration (the GOP was more progressive during the 1980s, while the Democrats adopted many of their positions in the '90s and '00s).

But this is exactly my point. None of this nuance matters because people feel like he's a leftist simply because of who he supported in the election and what he calls himself.

There is nothing "very defined" about "left" and "right".

Yes, there is.

That's the point you seem to be missing. Quite conspicuously.

I'm not missing it, I just disagree with it.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the "political spectrum" is a constant shifting continuum.

If you actually read my posts, you would know that I never denied this--ever. If I ever did deny this, then I would be arguing that anyone who favors democracy over monarchy or feudalism period is a leftist, which I am not.

You are arguing for a concrete answer where none exists.

Seems to me like you just don't understand my argument.

[Mavorpen]

I mean sure, if you want to arbitrarily redefine words, you can make any word apply to anyone. I don't see any actual worth in that.

The American version of these terms would fit better in the context of America, because this occurred in America and was influenced by American politics. They aren't necessarily arbitrary if they can be easily redefined to accurately talk about American politics.

Again, why does it fit better? Arbitrarily redefining ideas to make them "Americanized" is nonsensical and I see utterly no use in pandering to such nonsense.

[Gallia-]

I don't know anything about his positions, so I can't say whether he is a progressive or not. He supports Bernie Sanders, who is anti-free trade, and thus a rightist. He is also a Democratic Party member, which is a progressive party, but the GOP is also progressive because it supports free trade policies (although paleoconservatism exists in the GOP). I do not know where he stood on any other major issues, like immigration reform, but the GOP and Democrats are both progressive on immigration (the GOP was more progressive during the 1980s, while the Democrats adopted many of their positions in the '90s and '00s).

But this is exactly my point. None of this nuance matters because people feel like he's a leftist simply because of who he supported in the election and what he calls himself.

Did Hodgkinson consider himself a leftist? If he did, then they are correct. If he didn't, then it depends on how you view him. He could very well be a leftist, though.

Politics is essentially individualized and about finding groups that agree with you on particular positions. Thus, the "left/right" dichotomy varies based on your individual political persuasion.

There is nothing "very defined" about "left" and "right".

Yes, there is.

What universal, concrete, absolute definitions are you using?

That's the point you seem to be missing. Quite conspicuously.

I'm not missing it, I just disagree with it.

Then you are wrong. There are no absolutes or universals in politics. There are local absolutes and universals, but nothing that applies to everyone. That's sort of the point of politics.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the "political spectrum" is a constant shifting continuum.

If you actually read my posts, you would know that I never denied this--ever. If I ever did deny this, then I would be arguing that anyone who favors democracy over monarchy or feudalism period is a leftist, which I am not.

You seem fine with making other absolutist statements.

You are arguing for a concrete answer where none exists.

Seems to me like you just don't understand my argument.

Perhaps you should try phrasing it in more than one sentence.

Again, why does it fit better? Arbitrarily redefining ideas to make them "Americanized" is nonsensical and I see utterly no use in pandering to such nonsense.

You apparently see no use to politics, then. Why bother arguing about something to discover mutual common ground when you can silence people who disagree with you by never expounding on a clearly radical and somewhat aberrant position, and instead refer to cryptic "definitions" and "re-definitions" without ever offering any of your hidden knowledge of the universal truths of political belief?

The only "arbitrary redefining" happening is coming from you, the person who thinks that "left" and "right" means something outside of a specific nation's political continuum and historical context.

[Nulla Bellum]

I'm being charitable and using American political definitions. Certainly by international standards increasing capital gains taxes, increasing income tax and legalizing marijuana aren't exactly radical positions.

Increasing taxes today is a highly conservative position, anyway. The only "left" position in that list is legalizing marijuana, I guess, but I'm pretty sure some paleoconservatives are pro-marijuana too.

No True Leftist has an intelligible philosophy.

It's weird you'd say that since you have an anarcho-capitalist gold/black flag.

Libertarianism itself is a leftist leaning belief system on quite a few metrics, like advocating neo-liberal economic policies. That is something both the Democratic and Republican parties share, too, so they are both leftist/progressive in economic beliefs at their core. It would be difficult to reconcile libertarianism with neoconservatism and paleoconservatism, for one thing, which alienates it from any substantial conservative elements in American politics.

It's much easier to reconcile libertarianism with Silicon Valley techno-progressivism, though, which isn't surprising since libertarianism's root beliefs are leftist.

My flag isn't the issue, although I may one day change the black to blue to clarify my minarchism. Most of my conservative friends think I'm an anarchist, most of my liberal friends think I'm a robber baron. Que sera.

[Mavorpen]

Did Hodgkinson consider himself a leftist? If he did, then they are correct. If he didn't, then it depends on how you view him. He could very well be a leftist, though.

Considering yourself a leftist doesn't in any way make you one. Otherwise Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad, etc. are are leftists, which is an absurd proposition. But I agree with you that he could have been a leftist. I'm just saying that voting for Bernie and calling yourself a democratic socialist doesn't intrinsically make you one.

Then you are wrong. There are no absolutes or universals in politics. There are local absolutes and universals, but nothing that applies to everyone. That's sort of the point of politics.

Again, you keep drawing implications that I believe that the spectrum is set in stone. I don't and never have I said or implied such. My argument is that based on the centuries of philosophical thought (I'll again emphasize I'm not appealing to the French National Assembly), we have very clear guidelines on how to scale political thought.

You seem fine with making other absolutist statements.

It's not my fault you read things that aren't there.

Perhaps you should try phrasing it in more than one sentence.

Woah, I wasn't aware that I've only been typing one sentence per post this entire time. My apologies.

[Zanera]

The American version of these terms would fit better in the context of America, because this occurred in America and was influenced by American politics. They aren't necessarily arbitrary if they can be easily redefined to accurately talk about American politics.

Again, why does it fit better? Arbitrarily redefining ideas to make them "Americanized" is nonsensical and I see utterly no use in pandering to such nonsense.

America has varying topics of contention between the Left- and Right-Wings than the rest of the world, and applying political values of the rest of the world to American politics and vice versa would be inaccurate and thus nonsensical.
You can't be pandering to nonsense if it makes sense in the American context.

[Ifreann]

Look at you, acting like "left" doesn't mean "not Republican".

Just last week someone told me that conservatives are the true liberals and left-wing and the modern liberals/Democrats have tainted liberalism with their evil "(((((political correctness)))))." It's so hard to keep track these days.

Gosh, five parentheses. Even Jesus wasn't that Jewish.

[Jamzmania]

If he's on the left, he's a leftist.

Generally the advocacy of revolutionary politics is the dividing line between the left and the centre (and the right and centre-right). By that definition he's pretty squarely in the centre. Most of his politics revolve around reform, not revolution.

I'm pretty sure this is not what defines left vs. center or right vs. center-right.

[Mavorpen]

Again, why does it fit better? Arbitrarily redefining ideas to make them "Americanized" is nonsensical and I see utterly no use in pandering to such nonsense.

America has varying topics of contention between the Left- and Right-Wings than the rest of the world, and applying political values of the rest of the world to American politics and vice versa would be inaccurate and thus nonsensical.
You can't be pandering to nonsense if it makes sense in the American context.

No one is applying political values. We're talking about labeling people.