The difference between Left and Right

[baby_mouse]

Globally

The Left Wing dedicates itself to the prevention of suffering to people.

The Right Wing dedicates itself to the prevention of suffering to the Right Wing.

Discuss.

[tavalon]

1. Heh, heh

You sound like Will Pitt.

Yes, I think the selfishness gene runs much deeper in the right wingers.

[baby_mouse]

5. Indeed

And I agree, I do think it's genetic.

I've had to come to the realisation recently that my utopian ideals will always be fucked up by those assholes, because they don't really have any CHOICE in what they think, they're naturally predestined to be stupid and inhuman.

I extent tolerance and compassion to those who extend the same courtesies to me, and to those who extend these courtesies to all (which I don't, I exclude the Right Wing as I haven't time to be nice to people who want to fuck with me, it doesn't work.) I don't buy that we owe the Right anything, if they want a world of endless competition where everyone's out for themselves they can live in one, I prefer one where I can trust at least SOME of the other 6 billion inhabitants of the planet.

[bloom]

2. I think

for the right wing it is every person for themself (people might or might not think of those in their immediate family). And of course - "may the best man win" must be their motto (with an emphasis on "man").

Ideally - the left wing realizes that we all share a planet together and what effects you affects me affects the earth and the air and everything else - so to have a system that supports people helps us all.

[baby_mouse]

6. Exactly so

The best thing on this planet going for me is my 6 billion potential allies! Beats an attidute problem, really. 6 billion little helpers all helping to make my life work and I can join in! It's not hard. It's certainly going to make things a lot easier for me than just relying on my own strengths among 6 billion competitors.

You'd think they'd get this. They don't, they want 6 billion potential competitors. It doesn't make any sense...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baby_mouse]

11. Oh, hello!

Are you one of those troll things I keep hearing about?

Pleased to meet you!

But it sounds like you AGREE with the ideal...

[In_The_Wind]

17. nice

where did you learn that attitude:nuke:

[tavalon]

19. Interesting choice of username

Hyperbole or accuracy?

[RPM]

22. what was the name? n/t

[baby_mouse]

26. "Right Wing Extremist"!

So cute! I can just imagine him with a cute little dog collar in an American flag painted gimp suit.

[RPM]

37. subtle

real fucking subtle.

[baby_mouse]

41. *Kamikazi* troll!

Real fucking SILLY!

What a waste of text!

No staying power, these young trolls. Where can I get me a big MEATY troll with muscles and stamina?!?! Me Mousey Jaws, Hungry, chomp chomp

:beer:

:-)

[rman]

27. ...

"Right Wing Extremist"

I kid you not.

[RPM]

38. guess he figured he'd fit in here...

... with a name like that.

Dumbass.

[tavalon]

57. If I remember correctly

It was rabid republican.

[Deja Q]

3. The right wing has been winning for decades straight.

[baby_mouse]

7. ???

Well, in the States, yeah. Not everywhere.

[rman]

12. Not everywhere? Examples please?

Venezuela comes to mind, but that's only a recent development. If you mean Europe, it's not much different there then in the US.
The robbery of the world's wealth is a global effort, it is certainly not limited to the US.

[baby_mouse]

15. My thought is that it depends on the issue

Gay rights have been bounding ahead in Spain, Britain, Canada over the past years

Significant recent rise in aid to Africa, (although that's a thorny issue and needs a thread all to itself)

The Right is widely regarded with ridicule and suspicion in Britain, which I believe is because we've been through the cycle the States is currently experiencing when we had Thatcher

There are others but I really mean issue territory rather than specifically geographic, although agree it is difficult to see what ideological territory the Left in the States has made any advances in recently (not a slight, please don't be offended, you're up against a SPECIAL enemy), so the geographic and ideological territories coincide there.

I could go and look it all up, but I think you know what I mean.

[rman]

23. Let's take the UK as a example

Like practically everywhere, many of the people there are suspicious of RW policies and practices - while the governments do promote and follow RW policies. Blair is a member of the Labor party (more accurately: "New" Labor), but he and most of that party is promoting and following RW policies.
Same thing in the supposedly oh so progressive The Netherlands; it's part of "New Europe", meaning that the government supports Bush and his war contrary to local public opinion on te matter. Not only are these nations in practice right-wing, they are also un-democratic.

All throughout history wherever the government of a resource-rich developing nation has favored the interests of its people instead of the interests of the wealthy nations (which is: get more resources), there have been coups and/or assassinations and/or wars, resulting in the replacement of these governments by governments friendly to US/rich-nations' interests.

Relatively new is economic occupation, where large corporations originating from the wealthy nations take over most of the local economy after these poor nations have accepted economic 'help' from the wealthy nations, in the form of various "Free Trade Agreements" issued by various international institutions created by those very same wealthy nations (IMF, WTO, World Bank). This is now the preferred method, followed by coup, assassination and war (in that order).
The US is clearly a front runner here, but definately not alone.

[ghostsofgiants]

20. Spain is another example

But for the most part, you're right I think.

[rman]

24. Spain being left-wing is even more recent then Venezuela

And it remains to be seen how progressive it will get, and how long it will last.

HypnoToad's claim (which i support) is:
"The right wing has been winning for decades straight."

There are exeptions - but those are, indeed, exeptions. Imo the claim is pretty accurate.

[ghostsofgiants]

34. And I also said that for the most part I agreed

[dogday]

32. The Right has been cheating for decades straight

they don't care if it is not the truth or if they have to make it up. If we want to get as dirty as the right, we could win as well. Are we willing to go into the mudpit with the republicans?

[RPM]

39. if we want to survive.

yes.

[baby_mouse]

42. No option, dear.

If we are to preserve ourselves and each other we need to get this through our heads:

We have to be NASTIER. They fear each other more than us, that's why they side with those of the ugliest disposition in their wing.

It's fine to kick *those* fuckers when they're down, truly. They have no code, no rules.

We should preserve our good manners solely for those who reciprocate. There isn't time for generosity towards the black holes of this world. What about the rest of us? Give power to evil in the hope that it will be inspired by your example and it will suck off you forever... And then we'll have nothing left for those who work for and deserve the goodness that can be brought about by cooperation and good conduct. Unfair.

Strengthen the bonds with those who understand. That's my philosophy, these days.

[Mizmoon]

4. The Left can go off of the deep end too

Remember Pol Pot?

Extremism is the enemy. That's why the repuke wish to wipe out our party is so frightening. We keep each other in balance.

[baby_mouse]

10. I'm not sure where this comes from...

I didn't accuse the Right of extremism. Not that they aren't capable of it, of course, but I don't see why you respond with that particular observation to my OP...

I agree with the content of yours, BTW, excpt the balance thing, I don't really buy into the notion that Left and Right balance each other out. I don't think it's that neatly symmetrical.

I don't think Pol Pot's extremism was particularly related to his left-leaning sentiments, as the left and right are both capable of this kind of extremism. I've landed on the supposition that the extremism is a consequence of ALL mass-group think, regardless of political orientation, so we should avoid using examples of the extremism that past representatives of our political opponents agenda have displayed, it's a pot, kettle thing.

I don't want to wipe the Right out, I just wish they'd think a little harder. Sometimes they make sense but it's really only when they are talking about the very peculiar situations where aggressive self-interest really is the only option, and I feel such situations are in fact very rare in reality. I think that focussing on aggressive self-interest can bring about these peculiar situations very quickly and easily and then cause and effect can rapidly become depolarised and it becomes very easy to lose your way in any analysis of who's responsible for what...

Sorry if that all got a bit abstract...

[Coastie for Truth]

25. A good example (or bad example)

of Left Wing Wingnuts battling right wing wing nuts over visceral hatreds going back 1300 years - no, 2000 years -- with a plethora of ad hominem attacks and links to all manner of extremist vanity sites (Sorcha Faal, David Horwitz, ElectronicIntifada, Daniel Pipes, Allison Weir, Paul Findley, Joe Corsi, etc.), and "locked" threads and "deleted" posts -- and "Disuptors" --

[baby_mouse]

47. okay then

I scanned the rules for that board and can only imagine the flame wars they came from...

your original point taken...

[Coastie for Truth]

50. A week on that Board makes you paranoid

and I am a product of the "political correctness" school of Eleanor Roosevelt - Adlai Stevenson - Hubert Humphrey progressive politics.

I follow a simple rule - if it is acceptable at a "Social Action Committee" meeting of the local Unitarian-Universalist Church or Reform Jewish Temple - it is probably acceptable political discourse -- and is also probably somewhere between left/center and (non-extreme) left.

[rman]

16. Yeah well, some people say Hitler was a Left winger.

But if you look at what he did, there isn't much socialist or left wing about it. After hijacking the National-Socialist party, he first got political support from a bunch of small RW parties.

Right and Left are merely labels, that can be used by anyone. We should judge regimes by the fruits of their labor, and key there is (true) democracy.

[bloom]

56. I think it's the right-wingers who say Hitler was a left-winger...

It's easier on their egos.

[scarletlib]

8. Here is a little "joke" that illustrates this fact:

"What is the difference between a Christian Republican and a Christian Democrat?"

A Christian Democrat will tolerate 99 welfare cheats to feed one hungry family. A Christian Republican will let 99 families go hungry to catch one welfare cheat.

(Just substitute left and right and take out the word Christian and ta da!)

The above is an old joke I first heard when Reagan was in office--touting his "welfare queen" stories and cutting benefits for the poor.I actually know of people who did die when those bastards in his admin. cut off disability payments to people.

[leftofthedial]

13. one might also say

that the Right Wing dedicates itself to the creation of suffering of all people except the RW elite.

[noiretextatique]

18. i like your version better

it's more direct...and accurate.

[baby_mouse]

28. half agree, half disagree

More direct, yes, but not ALL the RW are into getting their boots on ATEO.

[noiretextatique]

29. what is ATEO?

[baby_mouse]

31. "At The Earliest Opportunity"

Like ASAP but milder

[noiretextatique]

36. thanks...and which ones are holding back?

compassionate conservatives? :D i suppose there might actually be a few of those around.

[baby_mouse]

40. Well. okay.

There are one or two that now post here. The concerned Republican types who actually think about politics that landed on the right through a defeatist approach to the whole hippy world harmony thing (hug that tree!) rather than an actively malicious approach to anything that smacks of kindness. They DO exist, and in the coming years will prove good allies if we treat them fair and right.

[noiretextatique]

44. i would not consider them RW

and certainly not a part of the radical right, e.g., bush, inc.

[baby_mouse]

46. They do though

And can read these posts.

Actually, I was rather hoping one or two of them might pop in here and say something. I'm feeling a little guilty, I've been a bit loud recently...

[noiretextatique]

48. The Right Wing dedicates itself to the prevention of suffering

to the Right Wing.
does your statement apply to them? but not ATEO?
right...i'm afraid you're lost me.

[baby_mouse]

51. I'll clean myself up a bit

ATEO RWers actively bring about the suffering of others

Non-ATEO Right Wingers protect the RW *but no-one else* because they feel it represents them but do not actively pursue malicious ends

[noiretextatique]

52. help me out here...

if you support ATEO RWers who are actively bringing about the suffering of others by pursing malicious ends, and if you protect them...
how can it be that you aren't also bringing about the suffering of others?

[baby_mouse]

53. WORM CAN OPENS!!!

SPLAT!

You can be responsible for your own actions but not those of others *unless* you are *largely* directly *in control* of their actions or their circumstances. Non-ATEO RWers are enablers, not active bringers-about. There are a wide range of reasons this happens...

Also, I think you have to be reasonably clued into what the likely consequences of your support will be in order to be held as an ACTIVE bringer-about, my guess is that a lot of non-ATEO RWers were not when they voted for *.

They do not *bring about* the suffering of others, they *enable* it. Sometimes only partially consciously, often without the necessary info to bring them up short on that path.

I think we need to be clear on the difference. "Enabling" in my book is inactive.

Good question, BTW.

[noiretextatique]

60. they protect the rw, and only the rw

isn't that one of your non-AETO RWers traits? that seems more like active enabling to me. the people stand by and do nothing while a person kills another person are active enablers...remember the kitty genovese case? people who too unconcerned to even bother calling the police. but i concede that there are passive enablers, but frankly, the distinction has little meaning to me.

[baby_mouse]

62. Well, yeah, but

I guess it's just where *I* draw the line.

Hm, I'm going to have to write up a lot of what I've worked out over the years to make my point well, here...

The original point was that "all RWers actively pursue the suffering of those outside the RW", really it'd come to your definition of "active", to me you'd have to be (metaphorically) pulling the trigger or actually putting the boot in to win that badge... uhhh...

'kay, I'll think of a way of turning this into a seperate thread, cos it involves questions of how we go about thinking about responsibility and several things come into play there, what information you have at hand, what the actual sitch is, etc. Could be an interesting thread, actually, becuase thining about responsibility might reveal even deeper psychological differences betwee L + R...

Not just now, though, it's beautifully sunny outside...

Maybe seeya there when I post it?

:-) :-) :-)

:toast:

[lonestarnot]

14. Britt Hume and his stupid ass "Buy" comment is a perfect example.

[baby_mouse]

30. Perhaps the most naked example

I have ever seen, actually.

I'm trying to think of another, but can't.

[lonestarnot]

35. We need the clip played over and over... Truth is truly represented

www.freewayblogger.com

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Not a Linear Scale - but a radial scale

that only applies for about 340 degrees of arc. That last 20 degrees of arc - from minus 10 degrees to plus 10 degrees - where the extremes meet - there is no difference -- both sets of extremists are full of extremist wingnuts with extremist conspiracy theories and extremist human failings and extremist visceral hatreds.

Just look at some of the locked threads in some of the more emotional forums -

[dogday]

33. This has to do with dishonesty

and the right's ability to paint a picture with lies and deciet. Yes the Democrats are just not as good as doing that as the freeps...

[rman]

43. Left or Right is not relevant, it's a matter of pro- vs anti-democracy

In practice that is, never mind the rhetoric of politicians and their cronies everywhere.

In short: it's about despotism versus the lack thereof.

"Despotism"
Encyclopaedia Britannica Films (1946)
Audio/Visual: sound, B&W
Keywords: Political science
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=00178

"Illustrates the thesis that all communities can be ranged on a scale running from democracy to despotism. The two chief characteristics of despotism -- restricted respect and concentrated power -- are defined and illustrated. Two of the conditions which have historically promoted the growth of despotism are explained and exemplified. These are a slanted economic distribution and a strict control of the agencies of communication."

Whether Left or Right, any kind of dictatorship/tyranny/whateveryouwanttocallit is in essence despotism, which is the rule of a minority over the majority: the opposite of democracy.
Despotism is typified by concentration of political-, economic and media power. A real democracy requires transparent governance and an independent press. Given the extent of corporate influence in government and media, would it be to much of a stretch to say that the US is under the rule of a corporate dictatorship?
There is however some correlation between the occurrence of 'true democracy' and 'Leftness'. Virtually without exception "the people" do want a (political/economic) system where the population as a whole benefits from the wealth generated by their labor - as opposed to it benefiting primarily a small influential and rich minority.
Over the past decades almost without exception all over the world top incomes have increased while middle- and lower incomes have remained constant or have declined. That's not due to progressive policies, and it is contrary to the interests of the vast majority of the populations. It is because for the most part capitalists/right-wingers/conservatives have been (and still are) pulling the strings.

[baby_mouse]

45. Agree, but

You contradict yourself, Left IS relevant then.

/pedantry :-)

[rman]

61. Only when it is truly democratic

The label "Left" (or progressive, socialist etc) in and of itself is practically meaningless.

[Protagoras]

49. pretty accurate.

I'd say the only think I'd modify is that the Right Wing dedicates itself to the prevention of suffering of the RICH Right Wing.

The RW has lots of ignorant poor slobs in it...it doesn't give a damn for their suffering as long as they keep voting the right way and sending in the checks. Only those with money matter in the end.

[Midnight Rambler]

54. George Carlin had an interesting take

The Right cares more about human property, while the Left cares more about the human condition.

[baby_mouse]

55. Mmmm.

Yeah. Kinda.

I could argue with that but it'd be a bit pointless. The Right sometimes have an interest in the human condition if it can be slotted into their already existing agenda, etc...

But I think he's right, basically. Okay, yeah, I'll buy that one, too!

[porphyrian]

58. I would argue that the right wing...

...accepts suffering as a given, and so does whatever it takes to get ahead, despite the suffering that may cause. They don't give a damn about anyone they don't profit from in some way, and they would just as soon shoot someone who was suffering as feed them.

[housewolf]

59. Right (me & mine) vs. Left (us & ours)

I posted this on another thread, but it seems appropriate reply here, too, so I'm duplicating it...

It seems to me that the biggest difference between the left and the right boils down to which is a higher value - to the right it's "me and mine" and to the left it's "us and ours."

To the right, if someone doesn't fit into the circle of "me and mine" there is no sense of responsibility for or identity with "the other," anyone who is not included within the circle of "me and mine." When authorities take that basic concept and turn it into a survival issue, indoctrinat their followers with the idea that "the other" is dangerous and a threat, and teach to demonize "the other" as evil, it is easy to see how the right turns to demonization and hatred anyone they don't consider to be part of their "me and mine" group.

To the left, the circle is larger. Instead of "me and mine," the left embraces "Us and ours," an idea that extends to community, nation, and, for some, as large as the popoulation of the world. The left embraces the family of man, an idea that is so foreign as to be incomprehensible to the right.

It explains the whole issue of the right's policies of selfishness, greed, short-sightedness and rejection of ideas of "the common good" and responsibility for "the good of all." It is the basic social divide in the country right now.