Left Or Right

[Dr. Shane]

Some don't like the terms left and right or liberal and conservative. I don't like labels because few people fit into one. However while I don't like labeling people, I have no problem labeling positions.

There are many political news programs today. NewHour with Jim Lerher, CBS' 60 Minutes, NBC's Meet The Press, ABC's This Week and FOXNews's O'Reilly Factor are a few of the most popular. Anyone that watches these programs are familiar with the terms that are used. Those are the terms I tend to use myself.

Let's see if we can discuss this without personal attacks. Maybe we can learn how to better disagree without putting each other on the defensive.

[there buster]

Good luck, Shane. But when people are willing to use an opinion about an interpretation of an evaluation of a document as though it were a fact, as is being done right now on another thread, there's no possibility of having a rational discussion.

People are entitled to their own opinions. When they can no longer distinguish their opinions from facts, they've gone through the looking glass.

That's where the left is right now.

[Nicodema]

I personally don't like the labels either, whether for people or positions -- because of the way in which they are used to automatically bypass any objective analysis or open-minded consideration whatsoever, in either direction. As soon as a position is labeled, it seems all objectivity, logic, and reasoning powers cease. All most people see is the label, and they either embrace the position or discard it based on their general view of that label. Even worse, many think one label can do no wrong while the other can do no right. It makes it impossible to discuss ideas solely on the basis of their own intrinsic merits and flaws, pros and cons. That's why the use of labels pushes my buttons: it's a death blow to any honest, free, and open inquiry on a subject.

Just my 2 cents.

Nico

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

That's where the left is right now.

---

Not only is that statement completely inaccurate, but it is completely inappropriate for what I believe Shane requested in this thread: a discussion on the labels themselves, without attacking anyone. By making that statement, you have attacked not just those who identify as "left" but also those who may not be "left" but get labeled that way because of their ideas by those who identify as "right".

That is not the purpose of this thread as I read it.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Some don't like the terms left and right or liberal and conservative. I don't like labels because few people fit into one.

---

I don't like labels because it tends to make one sloppy in thier writing. I prize creativity in writing with clarity and preciseness. This is a writing forum, primarily, and while we write to communicate the political ideas of our times, we can shortcut with agreed upon labels.

Quote:

---

However while I don't like labeling people, I have no problem labeling positions.

---

Hmmmm....Labeling positions upon whose agreed upon standards??? That is a hornets nest on this board...and one that I don't want to take on....

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Not only is that statement completely inaccurate

---

Since you don't know what I'm referring to, you cannot make that conclusion without examining the claim "on its merits."

I attacked no one. I stated a fact.

It is quite easy to demonstrate that the interpretation being put forth as established fact is actually several steps removed from the actual words and possible range of meanings of those words.

Some statements have a relatively narrow range of meanings. For example, your claim that my statement is "completely inaccurate" technically has quite a narrow range. If I could establish 1% accuracy of my statement, that would falsify yours. On the other hand, reasonable people would probably agree that it would require slightly more, say, 10%, 20%, to falsify your statment.

Other phrases have relatively broad range of meanings. Even if the interpretation placed on it has a likelihood of 50% --fairly high given the nature of language--every step away reduces the likelihood. An interpretation with 50% accuracy, producing a conclusion of 50% probability (also fairly high) and there fore an expectation of 50% probability, the overall accuracy would be .50 x .50 x .50 - .125. In other words, one in eight.

When people express something with 1/8 likelihood as certainty, that's a problem.

And when this can be found in a common set of sources, we can say where it's coming from.

Perhaps you'd like to discuss some of the issues 'based on their merits."

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

I stated a fact.

---

In your opinion, Ed. Wow, talk about confusing opinion with fact. Your statement was a prime example thereof. Actually, I think you simply made a typo. Right is spelled r-i-g-h-t, not l-e-f-t.

Or perhaps you made a pun: "where the left is [the] RIGHT now."

Two can play at this childish pseudo-intellectual game. But as I stated before, I don't believe that was the purpose of this thread. It appears to me that Shane started this thread to discuss the use of labels themselves, not to demonstrate how obnoxious people can be while using them.

But thank you for providing a prime example of why I don't like their use by your blanket tarbrush statement. That is exactly the sort of nonsense that is most objectionable about them, as I stated in my former (ON TOPIC) post.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

[These labels] are used to automatically bypass any objective analysis or open-minded consideration whatsoever, in either direction. As soon as a position is labeled, it seems all objectivity, logic, and reasoning powers cease. All most people see is the label, and they either embrace the position or discard it based on their general view of that label. Even worse, many think one label can do no wrong while the other can do no right.

It makes it impossible

to discuss ideas solely on the basis of their own intrinsic merits and flaws, pros and cons. That's why

the use of labels

pushes my buttons: it's a

death blow

to any honest, free, and open inquiry on a subject.

---

Ed asked why I couldn't just "discuss [his] idea upon its merits". The answer is in what I already posted. He dealt the death blow before any discussion could ever get started because he used a label to tarbrush in broad strokes anything and everything one might arbitrarily assign to "the left". This is a prime example of why these stupid labels tick me off. It kills any meaningful discussion. While he claims I don't know what he is referring to, the point is, it does not matter. If he is referring to specific concepts considered "left" he ought to have spelled out those concepts instead of using a blanket LABEL which encompasses an entire spectrum of thought as well as ANY ideas purposely lumped together under that label because they are deemed untenable by those who oppose what that label stands for.

Ed, you are the one who shot your own discussion in the foot by doing that, not me. I could have just as easily opined the same thing about "the right" with the same results. With these labels, all we end up with is two people shouting at one another that the other "has no idea what they are talking about." We do NOT end up with productive discussion. That's why I am opposed to their use. They are too blanketing, too lazy. If you wanted to discuss SPECIFIC opinions which you see as being "confused with fact", that's another matter entirely. You ought to have listed those opinions, and they need not have been labeled. THEN they could have been discussed objectively. Once you used the label, you killed objectivity before it was even born, and demonstrated your own lack thereof.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Ed, you are the one who shot your own discussion in the foot by doing that, not me. I could have just as easily opined the same thing about "the right" with the same results. With these labels, all we end up with is two people shouting at one another that the other "has no idea what they are talking about." We do NOT end up with productive discussion. That's why I am opposed to their use. They are too blanketing, too lazy. If you wanted to discuss SPECIFIC opinions which you see as being "confused with fact", that's another matter entirely. You ought to have listed those opinions, and they need not have been labeled. THEN they could have been discussed objectively. Once you used the label, you killed objectivity before it was even born, and demonstrated your own lack thereof.

---

Some things just need to be repeated....

Nico, gosh gal, I can only sit back in awe of how you pen the very things that I am thinking of and do it sooo well...

Ed,

[majorly deleted posted paragraph that has no real merit but had losts of interesting tidbits]

[there buster]

Stirring, but mistaken.

"Hope," it is said, "springs eternal."

I'd rather be mistaken believing that people can learn, can move forward, can grow, than to be correct in believing they cannot.

Occasions a lot of grief, though.

Disagreeing with what people say is considered violent around here, while presuming and attacking motives appears to be fair game. Interesting ethos. Maybe it'll change someday.

[Ron Lambert]

Decrying the use of labels is inherently hypocritical. It is impossible for human beings to evaluate anything without naming or applying labels to people, positions, everything. The only question is how fairly and accurately are these labels applied.

Are we not to "call a spade a spade?"

Are we not to "call sin by its right name?"

When Jesus reproved the Scribes and Pharisees for being "hypocrites" and called them "white-washed sepulchres," was He not applying labels?

When someone takes a position that is clearly recognizable as a "liberal" position, what is wrong with pointing this out?

If someone always takes such a position, what is wrong with concluding he or she is a liberal?

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it probably is not a Quaker.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Decrying the use of labels is inherently hypocritical. It is impossible for human beings to evaluate anything without naming or applying labels to people, positions, everything. The only question is how fairly and accurately are these labels applied.

---

Now here is a nebulous view....Humans MUST label everything and to do otherwise is hypocritical????

Humans describe things in the attempt to communicate and can shortcut by being precise with thier labeling and with well defined usuage. But hypocritical??? I don't think so...After all, the purpose of language is to ...? communicate? describe ? share information? all of those things and more...

but hypocritical???? well, I guess that has been done before.......

Quote:

---

Are we not to "call a spade a spade?"

Are we not to "call sin by its right name?"

---

Ah, what is a "spade"? Is it, 1] reference to a black man, 2] reference to a card, 3] other

What is sin? Is it 1] anthing not of faith 2] broken commandment, 3] something intangible that has infected the known world 4] all of the above 5] other

Quote:

---

When Jesus reproved the Scribes and Pharisees for being "hypocrites" and called them "white-washed sepulchres," was He not applying labels?

---

But was those classes of people well defined, well established people? I think they were, and everyone knew what was ment.

Quote:

---

When someone takes a position that is clearly recognizable as a "liberal" position, what is wrong with pointing this out?

---

It is one thing to point it out and say it is IN YOUR VIEW a liberal position. It is totally different when you assert that it is ASSUMED BY EVERYONE that it is a liberal position.

Quote:

---

If someone always takes such a position, what is wrong with concluding he or she is a liberal?

---

Because,...[ahem].... if I dare say this , you have been shown to be wrong before and you get upset by it.

Honestly, your definition of liberal is defined by your conservativeness. And some of us aint that conservative and have different understandings than you, Ron. We understand the world differently, and since we understand that, we also understand that some views are neither right nor wrong, liberal nor concervative. They just are.

Quote:

---

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it probably is not a Quaker.

---

Just because an animal has a duck bill and wadles like a duck and assumes that it talks like a duck, might just be a platypuss..

Oh, and Ed....YOu said-

Quote:

---

Disagreeing with what people say is considered violent around here, while presuming and attacking motives appears to be fair game. Interesting ethos. Maybe it'll change someday.

---

It is NOT in the disagreeing with you , Ed. IT is how you say it. And in your case, you have shown yourself, at least to me and MAYBE not to others, abusive in your postings. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive...

[there buster]

Quote:

---

abusive in your postings. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive..

---

You will have a hard time finding anything I have written that describes an individual, their character, or their motives. Nor do I question another's Christian experience. I restrict myself to reasoning, arguments, and words.

I can easily find posts of yours where you have described another's attitudes as "brutal" for example. There are many, many such instances.

You don't like it when your reasoning is shown to be faulty. Well, no one does. But that's hardly abuse.

[Bravus]

OK, back on topic.

I've talked about this before here: anyone who thinks at all is unlikely to neatly fit into a basket labelled 'left' or 'right', because we're complicated and we have a nuanced range of opinions and ideas. I guess it's possible to just thoughtlessly buy in to a 'package deal' of beliefs, but it doesn't seem like a useful way of living or thinking.

For example, we will have different beliefs in the fiscal, social and legal dimensions. I think I actually tend toward libertarianism in terms of government regulation of some things (private sexual relationships and forbidding prayer in schools, for example) and toward liberalism in others (sanctioning companies that pollute, for example).

There's a wide range of issues and a wide range of beliefs, and the language of simple labels is (IMO) not 'right' or 'wrong' it's just inefficient and tends toward obscuring rather than revealing the truth.

[Dr. Shane]

Just tagging on...

Words are important becuase they are a means to communicate. As I memntioned before, there is a vocabulary that is used on common political shows. As I was watching NewsHour with Jim Lerher this evening I noticed them using the words - liberal, conservative and radical.

What is liberal and what is conservative? If one doesn't know that they need to watch more political programs like 60 Minutes, This Week, Meet The Press or NewsHour.

[Bravus]

those terms are still too simplistic though

[NormF]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

... what is wrong with concluding he or she is a liberal?

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then ...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

... why not take a shot at it? That's what ducks are for, ain't they?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

When someone takes a position that is clearly recognizable as a "liberal" position, what is wrong with pointing this out?

If someone always takes such a position, what is wrong with concluding he or she is a liberal?

---

Nothing -- so long as for you, "liberal" has become NEITHER a "dirty word" nor a sacred cow. That's the crux of the matter and why these labels don't work -- automatic assumptions about what the label means, in particular by those for whom it is a "dirty" word, but in some cases even for those who applaud it. The problem with the labels, again, is the blanket rejection or blind embracing of anything under that label without any sort of open-minded analysis of the actual concept, idea, or content itself.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Disagreeing with what people say is considered violent around here, while presuming and attacking motives appears to be fair game. Interesting ethos. Maybe it'll change someday.

---

I still think you're missing the boat on this one.

It's not the fact of the disagreement. It's the fashion in which it is presented. It CAN be presented without blanket judgments or "attacks" on others in either the general OR the particular sense. But only if one has a mind to do so.

I do agree with one thing: hope springing eternal does occasion a lot of grief -- and a number of wasted words at times.

In that, I know just how you feel.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Neil D said:

Honestly, your definition of liberal is defined by your conservativeness.

---

This is an excellent point as well which needs to be made. I've seen this demonstrated on numerous occasions. The extreme right-wing, through its media and campaigns and other communications, issues an edict that such-and-such is "liberal thinking" and everyone who believes the right-wing to be a sacred cow or a source of Absolute Truth immediately embraces the notion and runs with it.

While I haven't seen the same sort of thing on the other side, I have no doubt that it, too, could exist and probably does for some. I probably just don't see it because I myself am not, nor have I met, those hypothetical creatures who are so far "left" that they have divested themselves of all rational analysis and independent thought.

Quote:

---

... some of us ain't that conservative and have different understandings than [others]. We understand the world differently, and since we understand that, we also understand that some views are neither right nor wrong, liberal nor conservative. They just are.

---

Yup. Some of us think for ourselves to arrive at a viewpoint, and don't appreciate having it assumed we swallowed it from some politician, think tank, or media outlet. The pot calling the kettle black in THIS instance has failed to note that the kettle is stainless steel instead, and the pot has merely been gazing into his own mirror image upon it.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

You don't like it when your reasoning is shown to be faulty. Well, no one does. But that's hardly abuse.

---

I think most of us would take exception to the fallacious reasoning that if our reasoning does not conform to another's point of view, that makes it "faulty."

That seems to me to be the approach you take on a consistent basis. And when it doesn't work, you appear to pronounce yourself superior, gather up your "toys" and leave in a huff -- which I regard as a highly manipulative social engineering ploy that works in two different ways upon those who respect your posts when you are posting things of substance: those who seem to have "driven you off" feel hurt or ashamed, while the bystanders look down upon and/or become upset with whomever they perceive to have "driven you off". In reality, it was your decision and your responsibility solely that you flounced off in what I perceive as a pseudo-intellectual huff.

And to think I used to wonder why people got ticked off at me when I did that sort of thing! Well now I know.

(p.s. - please note the use of "appear to", "what I perceive as" and "which I regard as" in the penultimate paragraph. This type of language indicates I am owning my perceptions as my own rather than judging your motives or intentions. That means if my perceptions neither fit, nor mean anything to you, you can feel free to disregard them as such. But they are stated as honest feedback on what I see, if any such feedback is ever deemed of value to you.)

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Some of us think for ourselves to arrive at a viewpoint, and don't appreciate having it assumed we swallowed it from some politician, think tank, or media outlet.

---

I see, and the rest of us? Does it refer to anyone specific who is "not thinking for him/herself," or is it a "blanket attack"?

Just trying to understand your standards.

Quote:

---

The pot calling the kettle black in THIS instance has failed to note that the kettle is stainless steel instead, and the pot has merely been gazing into his own mirror image upon it.

---

I see, and these are not attacks? I shall keep that in mind.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

your definition of liberal is defined by your conservativeness.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The same can be said of you. Your definition of a conservative is defined by your liberalness. You go as far as to say I am on the far right! I favor government regulation for environmental protection, an escalated income tax scale and universal healthcare which are all left of center positions but you still seem convinced I am part of the radical right.

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

(Nico wrote) Some of us think for ourselves to arrive at a viewpoint, and don't appreciate having it assumed we swallowed it from some politician, think tank, or media outlet.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

(Ed D responded)I see, and the rest of us? Does it refer to anyone specific who is "not thinking for him/herself,"...?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No, I think that by saying 'some' Nico was simply referring to herself and some others, rather than presuming to speak for everyone in the world. I'm not accusing you of presuming to speak for everyone either, simply explaining the choice to avoid using the all-inclusive term. It's a species of humility that I think is valuable in these discussions to be willing to acknowledge that one's own views don't necessarily represent those of everyone. I think the construction you made of it was the opposite of what she intended (though of course in saying that I'm presuming to divine her intention!).

The point was that it's inappropriate for anyone on either side (although my whole point throughout this thread is that thinking of two 'sides' is part of the problem) to assume that those on the other side are simply parrotting a list of talking points from someone else. It's simple courtesy to ascribe to others what we believe of ourselves - that we hold the beliefs we do based on rational consideration of our own values and their implications.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

The same can be said of [others]. [Their] definition of a conservative is defined by [their] liberalness.

---

Indeed, that could equally be the case.