US Representative Shot

[Jamzmania]

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.

And using the words that people understand would be most appropriate.

[Mavorpen]

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

And using the words that people understand would be most appropriate.

Again, I don't see the use in appealing to ignorance solely for political gain.

[The Widening Gyre]

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.

What does then? I mean, it's either this or draw a line down the middle of centrism and quibble about what pushes you over the line in the sand one way or the other.

[Zanera]

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.

Labeling people based on their political values, yes?

[Nulla Bellum]

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.

Are we sure the shooter was a left-wing nutbag as opposed to a left-wing dipshit? Where's my Venn diagram?

[Jamzmania]

And using the words that people understand would be most appropriate.

Again, I don't see the use in appealing to ignorance solely for political gain.

It's not ignorance, it's just a slightly different definition based on historical and societal context. The same context which defines the left-right orientation of every other country. No other country's definition is more or less accurate because they all describe views within their own nation.

[Mavorpen]

Again, I don't see the use in appealing to ignorance solely for political gain.

It's not ignorance, it's just a slightly different definition based on historical and societal context. The same context which defines the left-right orientation of every other country. No other country's definition is more or less accurate because they all describe views within their own nation.

...Except that historical and societal context remains the same. The definitions come from philosophical thought that branched all across the world, including the United States. The skewed political spectrum belief in the United States is literally ground in ignorance of leftist philosophy.

[Jamzmania]

It's not ignorance, it's just a slightly different definition based on historical and societal context. The same context which defines the left-right orientation of every other country. No other country's definition is more or less accurate because they all describe views within their own nation.

...Except that historical and societal context remains the same. The definitions come from philosophical thought that branched all across the world, including the United States. The skewed political spectrum belief in the United States is literally ground in ignorance of leftist philosophy.

This is seriously such a stupid thing to argue over. The guy was clearly a left winger according to the definitions that matter. Whatever definitions you want to use are obviously not popular enough to warrant paying attention to.

[Mavorpen]

...Except that historical and societal context remains the same. The definitions come from philosophical thought that branched all across the world, including the United States. The skewed political spectrum belief in the United States is literally ground in ignorance of leftist philosophy.

This is seriously such a stupid thing to argue over. The guy was clearly a left winger according to the definitions that matter. Whatever definitions you want to use are obviously not popular enough to warrant paying attention to.

If the definition that matters is the feelings and ignorance of right-wingers, then yes.

[Jamzmania]

This is seriously such a stupid thing to argue over. The guy was clearly a left winger according to the definitions that matter. Whatever definitions you want to use are obviously not popular enough to warrant paying attention to.

If the definition that matters is the feelings and ignorance of right-wingers, then yes.

Right wingers and left wingers.

[Mavorpen]

If the definition that matters is the feelings and ignorance of right-wingers, then yes.

Right wingers and left wingers.

If by "left-wingers" you mean American right-wingers who other right-wingers think are left-wing, then yes.

Seriously though, I get enough of this nonsense in the form of, "evolution is just a theory." I truly don't understand why you people insist on appealing to ignorance as a justification for asinine definitions.

[Jamzmania]

Right wingers and left wingers.

If by "left-wingers" you mean American right-wingers who other right-wingers think are left-wing, then yes.

Seriously though, I get enough of this nonsense in the form of, "evolution is just a theory." I truly don't understand why you people insist on appealing to ignorance as a justification for asinine definitions.

Because it's simple and everybody is already is already using these definitions. There's no compelling reason to change and learn your particular definitions.

[Keskeidzhya]

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

What does then? I mean, it's either this or draw a line down the middle of centrism and quibble about what pushes you over the line in the sand one way or the other.

According to Heavy.com he was considered a "Passionate Progressive" by his campaign co-worker. He hated Trump and considered Hillary "Republican Lite." He was outspoken in his advocacy of a dedicated Socialist. This places him (on the American Scale) Far-Left by our exploitative Capitalist system.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/james-hodgkinson-alexandria-gop-baseball-shooter-shooting-gunman-identified-illinois/

Revolutionary and radical thought are innate to American Politics (Whigs, Federalists, Democrats, Republicans all founded as parties willing to to go war for their objectives). It does not make a good dividing line for us. We have a confused and confounded line that is worthless.

The better line is vertical where the measure of expolitation from Fascists and Capitalist and their governments that allow it are put at the bottom. The true stateless society where people are free from corruption and eploitation are put at the the top. This is the better than trying to lump everyone who isn't a Capitalist on the left.

[Ifreann]

...Except that historical and societal context remains the same. The definitions come from philosophical thought that branched all across the world, including the United States. The skewed political spectrum belief in the United States is literally ground in ignorance of leftist philosophy.

This is seriously such a stupid thing to argue over. The guy was clearly a left winger according to the definitions that matter. Whatever definitions you want to use are obviously not popular enough to warrant paying attention to.

So what you're saying is that you're firmly against an absolute, "originalist" interpretation of the left/right spectrum, preferring instead a "living" spectrum that moves with the popular understanding of the politics of the day.

[Mavorpen]

If by "left-wingers" you mean American right-wingers who other right-wingers think are left-wing, then yes.

Seriously though, I get enough of this nonsense in the form of, "evolution is just a theory." I truly don't understand why you people insist on appealing to ignorance as a justification for asinine definitions.

Because it's simple and everybody is already is already using these definitions. There's no compelling reason to change and learn your particular definitions.

You know what, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking. People being lazy and refusing to learn is precisely the reasoning behind the issue.

[Jamzmania]

This is seriously such a stupid thing to argue over. The guy was clearly a left winger according to the definitions that matter. Whatever definitions you want to use are obviously not popular enough to warrant paying attention to.

So what you're saying is that you're firmly against an absolute, "originalist" interpretation of the left/right spectrum, preferring instead a "living" spectrum that moves with the popular understanding of the politics of the day.

I guess so.

[Jamzmania]

Because it's simple and everybody is already is already using these definitions. There's no compelling reason to change and learn your particular definitions.

You know what, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking. People being lazy and refusing to learn is precisely the reasoning behind the issue.

We have better things to learn, things that might actually matter.

[Mavorpen]

You know what, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking. People being lazy and refusing to learn is precisely the reasoning behind the issue.

We have better things to learn, things that might actually matter.

I...I have to say, I didn't anticipate that you would outright admit to being lazy and ignorant.

[Jamzmania]

We have better things to learn, things that might actually matter.

I...I have to say, I didn't anticipate that you would outright admit to being lazy and ignorant.

There's clearly nothing to be learned in this discussion, so I think I'll just stop.

[Gallia-]

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.

I'd consider Dave Rubin to be a leftist. He is a "classical liberal", which means he supports lefty things like free trade (and thus, multiculturalism) and maybe even "natural law". I don't know about Sargon of Akkad, I don't watch his Youtube videos. Where you consider yourself to be very well does decide where you are on the political spectrum, by any other definition that includes the individual themselves, although I am sure there are many people who believe that political opinions "aren't enough" to show "true belief". Or who think that individual beliefs don't matter and only group acceptance matters, but you aren't a group of people unless you're speaking for a bunch of people, I suppose.

What "intrinsically" makes someone a leftist? Do you need to snort lines of red dyed cocaine through rolled pages of Das Kapital?

You seem to think that there are particular absolute truths about politics. That is what you are hinting at this entire time, but you never actually explain why this is the case. Why should I believe anything you say without you showing me evidence? That itself is a philosophical position which can be up for debate, though I suspect that even if you were Jesus of Nazareth I still wouldn't believe a word you say at face value.

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 use "left" and "right", which itself is an appeal to the National Assembly.

The concept of left/right didn't exist before 1789. Why don't you try explaining these "clear guidelines", since I apparently never got the memo that "left" and "right" had any meaning outside of a particular place's historical context. Here I was under the silly delusion that "left" in Britain or France was very much different from the "left" in Russia or the United States, and vice versa.

Clearly even Liechtenstein is powerful enough to "warp reality" and change the definition of left/right, though.

You seem fine with making other absolutist statements.

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

Oh? That's funny because:

Left-wing

Based on...?

>Implication of not being "left" in American politics.

There aren't very many right wingers who self describe as democratic socialists and are huge Sanders fans.

Generally speaking, the ones I've come across have been precisely that.

>Atypical definition of the left/right political spectrum with no explanation.

Unless you have some sources showing him calling for abolition of private property or actual left-wing ideology.

>Monolithization of actual left/right dichotomies to single issue, shades of 19th century thought appear

Dunno, go find out and report back.

So what you're telling me is that you lied to me about him being left-wing?

>Assumption that politics is based on universal or absolute truths, which is also implied with the previous quote

I'm telling you that all the reporting thus far has made him out to be a pretty left leaning individual, given all of his social media supports that as does his family and friends.

I don't really care if you think he's a real left winger™ or not.

So that's a yes, you did lie.

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

>No serious discourse or explanation, vague hostility

Seems more like a liberal to me.

>Outright states leftist belief

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.

>Further assumption that there is a universal ("the world/political spectrum") political spectrum, rather than political spectrums being divided by in-group and out-group associations of individual group agents

How about you show they aren't there instead of saying they are. Saying "they're not there" isn't enough when I can clearly see them there. Either I'm reading your statements wrong because you refuse to elucidate on them (or because you cannot?) or you're pulling me along for a jape. Whichever the case, I'm clearly missing a key element in your thought process that I need to see what you're seeing.

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.

A few more exchanges like this and I could teach a Twitter bot to predict your statements.

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.

There is no "centre". Inevitably, centrists are shuffled into "left" or "right". I would consider Mussolini a centrist if it were 1922, since Fascism was supposed to be the "Third Way" between the left and right dichotomies of communism and capitalism respectively in the Industrial Age. Arguably, communism was the hot button issue of the post-WW1 era until the end of the Industrial Age in the 1990s. This has changed. Now left and right is not really distinguishable from each other economically, since they are inevitably some form of capitalism. There must be new methods of distinguishing the left and right to be discovered, which generally involves digging at the nuance of their beliefs (which, arguably, has always existed, but the superficial details are becoming more homogenized).

Ultimately a left/right spectrum is divided by the hot-button issues of the place being discussed. Or time, if you're speaking historically. In Revolutionary France, it was the Revolution and the Monarchy, but today the hot-button issues would be stuff like free trade, immigration, and economic liberalization. The left/right divide is not necessarily progressive vs. conservative, either, although it can be.

Rightists in America are generally anti-free trade, anti-immigration, and neo-mercantilist. Leftists in America are generally pro-free trade, pro-immigration, and support greater economic liberalization. There are other issues and other areas, of course, but that's just an example.

I don't know enough about Hodgkinson's specific political views to label him as leftist or rightist, though. Party affiliation clearly isn't enough, since the Democrats are now a neo-conservative party (albeit towards Europe rather than Israel), while GOP is increasingly(?) paleoconservative.

[Mavorpen]

I...I have to say, I didn't anticipate that you would outright admit to being lazy and ignorant.

There's clearly nothing to be learned in this discussion, so I think I'll just stop.

I'm confused, I've been educating you this entire thread, then you admit that you don't care about learning, then you suggest that you were here to learn. Pick one.

[Mavorpen]

What "intrinsically" makes someone a leftist? Do you need to snore lines of red dyed cocaine through rolled pages of Das Kapital?

That'd be a start.

You seem to think that there are particular absolute truths about politics.

I don't.

That is what you are hinting at this entire time, but you never actually explain why this is the case.

I can't explain something I don't believe.

Why should I believe anything you say without you showing me evidence? That itself is a philosophical position which can be up for debate, though I suspect that even if you were Jesus of Nazareth I still wouldn't believe a word you say at face value.

I'm not sure why you would believe anything I haven't said.

You use "left" and "right", which itself is an appeal to the National Assembly.

No, it isn't.

The concept of left/right didn't exist before 1789. Why don't you try explaining these "clear guidelines", since I apparently never got the memo that "left" and "right" had any meaning outside of a particular place's historical context.

Another user posted about half of it--that being an ideology steeped in revolutionary thought, but the second aspect is the belief about hierarchy, with right-wing ideology being more hierarchical and left-wing ideology being less so.

Here I was under the silly delusion that "left" in Britain or France was very much different from the "left" in Russia or the United States, and vice versa.

It's okay, everyone makes mistakes.

How about you show they aren't there instead of saying they are.

I mean, I suppose you could just read.

A few more exchanges like this and I could teach a Twitter bot to predict your statements.

You would have to read my posts in order to do that, I imagine.

[Ifreann]

So what you're saying is that you're firmly against an absolute, "originalist" interpretation of the left/right spectrum, preferring instead a "living" spectrum that moves with the popular understanding of the politics of the day.

I guess so.

I hope you understand why this amuses me.

[Mavorpen]

I guess so.

I hope you understand why this amuses me.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Political Spectrum™

[Jamzmania]

I guess so.

I hope you understand why this amuses me.

Yeah I can see the connection. I hope you also understand why the two things are not connected.