this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
2284 points (96.9% liked)
Memes
46747 readers
900 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is such a thing as a "non-extremist" right-winger?
Yes, Joe Biden.
He looked pretty extremist to me when he helped the Bush regime lie their way into Iraq. And the guy literally chose a pig to be his running mate.
Doesn't get more extreme than that - him pretending to be "nicer" than the more overt right-wingers doesn't change that.
I'm not absolving him of anything, I'm expressing a disdain for Democrats masquerading as a left leaning party.
Okay.
Probably the LibDems in the UK—A mostly inert centre-right party
The probability of encountering a "non-extremist" right-winger is exactly the same as of encountering a "non-extremist" left-winger and is quite small. The vast majority of people are moderates, either left or right leaning.
Also, from the European perspective, the American left aka Democrats are quite right leaning :)
Oh look... an "enlightened centrist" has shown up to run interference for the right-wingers.
Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish center from right. I wonder how you drive if you can't into directions.
Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish politics from vehicular activity. I wonder how you manage to drive anywhere without ever turning left.
No, right-wing ideology has a very hard and clear-cut definition - all politics that protects power and privilege. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.
It's not supposed to be... but the only people self-applying the term in the US are fascists.
Yes. Period.
That's not progressive - that's radicalism.
Yes.
No.
No, that's radicalism.
No.
Yes, they've spent trillions on propaganda machines to make sure no clear meaning can be ascribed to rather simple political concepts. That doesn't stop us from discovering their actual meanings at all.
Yes. See above.
Sooo... power will attempt to "define" political concepts in a way that protects itself?
So, again... power will attempt to "define" political concepts in a way that protects itself?
And... more of the same?
That's because "definitions" are utterly useless. What isn't useless is the meaning without which these political concepts cease to serve any purpose - and no amount of "muddying the water" will be able to rob them of that.
I have said nothing about authority. You, on the other hand...
...ascribe those with the deepest pockets and vilest agendas the power to "define" the meaning of terms for you. Fox News gets to "define" the usage of the term socialism as "gubment doing stuff" (or whatever white supremacist nazi crack-pipe logic they are peddling these days) - but that doesn't rob the term socialism of it's actual meaning in any way or shape whatsoever. Fox News doesn't get to wipe away hundreds of years of socialist theory - that's why their ilk are resorting to burning books. They have failed to strip meaning from ideas despite all the trillions they have spent on their propaganda - so now they are resorting to the age-old tactic of simply attampting to prevent people from coming into contact with said meaning in the first place.
The exact same goes for what is "left" or "right," or that which is "radical" or "reactionary" - usage does not dictate meaning. The distance between the usage and the actual meaning of a term merely demonstrates the intelectual integrity (or lack thereof) and/or understanding (or lack therof) of the user.
So you have nothing left to argue with... except to bang on the table as hard as you can?