Stop with the straw men

The vast majority of the debate which occurs at this forum involves the sides debating past one another, not with one another. That is because neither side cares to engage with the other. They don't give their opinion and then wait hear the opinion of the other side, and then engage with that opinion. People erect caricatures of what they believe the other side is. They invent a bogeyman, and then argue against the bogeyman they have invented in their heads. It is why we get threads like "why does the left hate the free market" or "five myths from the right wing" or whatever. People write long sprawling posts about what the other side is, without actually understanding the other side. It is also why people are constantly accusing others of "loving Obama" if they ever disagree with any of what they are saying, even if they are strong opponents of Obama. Peoples caricature of those who disagree with them, carries some connotation of blind adherence to a party or political figure. Many at this forum dislike both parties equally.

The reality is, neither side is a monolith. One cannot honestly talk about the right as if it is one thing. There is a wide variation of beliefs on the right. There are religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, nationalists, hawks, etc, etc. That doesn't even mention right wing ideologies that are not popular in the US like fascism, theocracy, monarchism, etc (oh, and don't cherry pick from this post that fascism isn't right wing. That debate is old and tired, and I don't care to hash it out in this thread. Dozens of threads have been started on that topic, if you want to have that discussion post there). There are people on the right who believe in big government solutions. They believe in the power of the state. A conspicuous example to prove this is true, is that the most ambitious state endeavor in modern American history, and the one that put the most faith in the positive transformational power of the state, was the invasion of Iraq. The fundamental assumption essentially being that the state can invade a foreign county, deconstruct that countries state, and then rebuild it in the image of America. To believe this is possible, requires an extraordinary confidence in the power of the state to positively transform the world around you. I can think of no clearer example of statism. If you believe that, then you believe in big governments power to do good. Which is what the right always criticizes the left for. However, there are also people on the right, like libertarians, who whole-heartedly reject such notions. They believe in extremely limited government, personal freedom, etc.

Similarly, on the left there is the same level of variation. There are greens, feminists, marxists, social-liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, anarchists, etc There are big government advocates, who believe in the ability of the state to oversee and effectively manage the extraordinarily complex system that is the modern American economy. They believe government can stop big business from exploiting people, can ensure they pay high wages, that they can protect them from the abuses of capitalism. That government can regulate business into good behavior. They believe the government should have the power to regulate peoples consumption. There are also people on the left who are strongly opposed to government power. I consider myself among that group. I wouldn't say I subscribe dogmatically to any ideology, but would most accurately describe myself as a left-libertarian (I also don't want to have that conversation. It isn't an oxymoron, and the term has its roots among European leftists). I believe government doesn't use its power to limit the excesses of capitalism, nor to limit big businesses ability to harm people. They do the very opposite. They empower big business. The regulation is not meant to limit big-business, but to limit competition to big business. Government works to protect and promote their ability to accrue more capital. I am more in favor of small government than the vast majority of right-wingers at this forum.

The point I am trying to get across, is that NO the left doesn't hate the free market. No the right are not racists. That is because those concepts in of themselves are abstractions. They are reductive to an extreme. They reduce a giant and varied group of people, into a single monolithic entity described only by a single linear direction.

So maybe from now on, people can just start threads about their own beliefs. If you are on the left, don't tell us what is wrong with the right, and how horrible they are, because your stereotype of the right is almost certainly quite inaccurate. Instead tell us what it is good and correct about the left and why you believe that. Don't start a thread about something that happened, and then take a shot at the other side, again as if they are all the same hive mind. Instead explain why you think the current event is important and what is wrong or right about what was done. This requires more work than simply bashing your pet straw man, which is of course why so many people do bash their straw men, but it makes for a much more rewarding debate.

PS. The same is of course true of Muslims, blacks, "rednecks," Jews, Christians, Atheists, etc, etc, etc. None of those groups is one thing. They all have subests of people who believe different things and want different things.

 

thats why i started demanding proof which usually ends the argument.

 

Proof of what? Most political positions are as much the result of subjective value judgments and indefensible axioms, as they are verifiable evidence. For example, "income inequality is bad" is a subjective value judgment. Is it bad? Well that depends largely on your viewpoint on the world.

edit: I should also point out, that if you do make the judgment that income inequality is bad, it is going to be the justification used for a large number of policy initiatives. People who disagree on that value judgment, will have very different opinions on the policy initiative, and the "facts" won't sway them either way. If I point out that the top 1% owns X amount of the wealth, a person who thinks wealth concentration is natural, inevitable, and a justifiable representation of varied skill sets won't be affected in their position.

 

proof that their hypothetical argument is actually substantial

 

We're hardly see any meaningful discussion on this board for awhile. There are just trolls from both sides and no one is going to change anyone's position. I visit this board for a few laughs, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I thought about trolling myself once but I knew it wouldn't end well since I would end up being reported to the mods by me. God what a tattletale.

 

That is of course true, but that is largely because neither side cares what the other has to say. Most people already "know" what the other side believes and they know they are wrong. If they actually just cared what others were saying, and responded meaningfully to that, instead of battering their invented straw men, there could be some level of meaningful debate. I mean it won't be extraordinarily illuminating, but more productive than what we see now at this forum.

 

That always helps. Although we have a major issue with people on this board knocking every form of source that doesn't back up their views.

 

Yep. I'm pro gay marriage but I don't believe that everyone who is against it is a racist homophobe. I'm also pro life and people would incorrectly argue that I'm trying to control women. If people would actually just sit back and listen to what someone else has to say then we would see that even if we disagree on something it's not because either you or me is some racist-ignorant-evil-redneck-thug, it's simply because we're human and guess what, humans differ! No, if we really want to get our point across then we listen and discuss, not ignore and insult. That's childish and shows a severe lack of intellect and maturity.

 

We can all hope. I know it is unlikely, and I likely just wasted 15 minutes writing the op, but it should be said, even if only one person takes anything away from it.

 

If nothing else you vented and that's something we all need to do from time to time. You didn't waste anything.

 

It's wishful thinking but it's not gonna happen. If you pay attention, they're actually recycling same old issues with same old articles, links, charts, graphs....etc...you name it. Take tax issue for an example, it could be a new thread but the materials are the same and they've been posted here a million times. Another word, this place is getting boring.

 

Why is the OP not overwhelmed with likes? Why is this thread not more active? By god, this thread surely deserves a bump, and you frodly deserve two likes. Did I posses the power, I'd mentally force-feed this to people on this board. Straw men are the worst things there are, and they are much to common on these boards.

People, do yourselves a favour and just read the OP, and let it sink in.

 

What is right and left? What is economically right and left wing? Does only results matter, or do motives play a part in determining?

 

Policies matter. Left is more economic control right is less. Far right is laissez faire, far left is true communism.

 

there are also a lot of people on this board who know that the strawman describes their view perfectly they just wont admit it.

 

What does that have to do with my post? I was correcting OP. that isn't what a straw man is at all.

 

nothing i dont know why i replied to your comment

 

True communism? You mean, where there are no governments to control in the first place? and less economic control, which'd mean anarchism? I'm not convinced.

And you don't think motive matters? The problem your thinking leads to is when we have two groups -communists and nazis- that propose the same policy, your thinking will say they are the same, when clearly they are not. Communists proposed it to reach equality and some fuzzy commie utopia, and nazis proposed it to strengthen the nation so that they can establish some lebensraum and be pure or whatever. Essentially it's about as useful as grouping together everyone who sanctions the use of force, and totally ignoring the very many justifications they would have, and ends. You're really doing yourself a diservice by this thinking.

 

Interesting points. I'm always amused when I'm called a "collectivist/leftist/progressive" in one thread and then a "right wing/neocon/wingnut" in another... on the same day!

 

I perceive it as a sign that the person is daft since more often than not when I see someone demanding proof it is such a simple thing that I must assume they live under a rock or their mom blocked google because they were looking for boobie pictures.

 

Nice sentiments and good working principles if one's goal is to be a well-rounded poster and yet they are principles that produce well-written Opening Posts that receive few if any responses. That's because on the whole political posters don't want to read well-reasoned and eminently sensible stuff; they want to be provoked and challenged or stroked and told that their perspective is the only intelligent way of looking at things. People generally respond most to OPs that do one of those things for them.

Whenever I produce a civilized and thoughtful, well-rounded, and sensibly balanced OP I do so knowing that it's probably going to vanish without a trace on a Political Forums system -- any system -- and so while I periodically do it anyway -- I produced one such today -- I do so knowing that most of them will receive no responses whatsoever. I produce them for the satisfaction of working though a thought process or an issue. But most producers of Opening Posts really and truly want lots of responses and to really tick off what they consider to be the irritating opposition; which is why most OPs are constructed along provocative lines and will continue to be done so as a matter of course.

Human nature . . . go figure.

 

Equalize the people? Maybe that is what commies say but it is all about the state in the end. True communism is full statism, they just don't call it that. Once you get into specifics there is little difference between the two I don't care how they sell it. If they sold it as "we are going to tell what we thinks is best" people wouldn't support it.

 

Truly, there's many essays worth of quality posts buried on PF. But as soon as they are put out, they are drowned by drivel. This is one of the reasons why I'm in favour of re-organising the sub-forums on PF, so that the activity will be neatly divided, so that quality posts have some more time on the first pages. I mean, I'd love to respond to quality OPs, but they get flushed back into obscurity during the time I'm off the forums! If you'd just browse a few pages back, you'll see plenty of interesting topics with well-written OP with just a few replies. A shame really.

 

It's mainly for those who make bogus claims and are unable to back it up when asked. It's to put them on the spot and expose the lies or misinformation that's being presented.