Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verbiage: Right-Wing and Left-Wing in the Social Arena

Chacham (981) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 40

On a thought about right-wingers and left-wingers in social settings. I am not sure how much of this is what i truly believe; parts of this are thoughts in progress.

On a thought about right-wingers and left-wingers in social settings. I am not sure how much of this is what i truly believe; parts of this are thoughts in progress.

Assuming they are not bigoted, everyone believes that everyone has the same potential, albeit in different areas. However, when dealing with the freeze-frame of where and who were are right now, both the right and left believe their group is better than the other, simply because of concious choice. The question is the focus.

The right wing believes the focus is on being better. That is, everyone starts off worse and the purpose of life is to become better, and then reap the very rewards that they have earned. The inferior group simply hasn't made it (yet), but avenues are open and welcome.

The left-wing believes the focus is on being worse. That is, everyone starts off (relatively) better and the purpose in life is to make sure we don't get worse. Though, they admit that by doing nothing people get worse automatically, and therefore require work to stay better. Thus, while rewards do go to the better naturally, they are not truly theirs, as they have not "earned" it. They just didn't "lose" them.

My personal feelings are left-wing. I even tell people that at heart i'm a Socialist. However, for two reason i do not politically go in that way. For one, i do not believe in forcing others to share this belief. I can advertise it, but not force it. As forcing it is contradicatory to the very belief that everyone is equal, and therefore their feelings--however incorrect they may be--are just as important as mine. Two, that to treat others as inferior is to disrespect them. I'd rather respect them and let them know that i believe that if they work hard they will be successful, as opposed to helping and saying "you're a loser, so i'm helping you."

In thought, the right-wing is better. It gives respect to each individual, and is true equality. You work, you gain. The major downfall is that it rejects reality. Some people do have better talents, and are thus more geared toward reaping those rewards. It is by no means an even playing field.

It therefore is only the centrists who believe in true equality. Nobody is better, and nobody is worse. They just are. And, possibly, we should only step in in the case of abuse. For even though people are who they are, circumstances that place things beyond the person's control remove some of that equality. However, this might have to work both ways, as long as it is outside the person's control. This though, seems the worst of all. Because without facing the reality that some are better and some are worse, it is unlikey that people ar helped at all. And that is simply bad news for the human condition.

In US politics, this makes about half the Republicans centrists, and the other half slightly right. The Democrats would be slightly left, and moderately left. The same can be seen in Israel. The Likud are mostly centrists and slightly right, where Labor is slightly and moderately left.

The main reason people call Republicans (or Likudnicks) rightists, is because they are to the right of the current center of the native populous. That is, people currently in the "Western" world tend to be slightly left. That makes the actual centrists into the "rightist", and the actual rightists into "wackos".

Given the leftward direction (slow as it may be). this may help explain why the media is considered left-wing. In reality it most definitely is left-wing, however, as the head of the train named culture, they are exactly what the people want. Some people are just a bit scared before they get there, though they will be mollified at the next stop.

cancel ×

40 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting observations (1)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#8561704)

I know that my views tend to be left and I would also call myself a socialist if that party carried any weight here in the states. In fact, I remember taking a political test online once that had a four quadrant graph and it would place a dot on to indicte where you all politically ased on some survey questions. Interestingly, I fell into the left catgory, but with authoritarian tendencies which put me in the company of a few "colorful" people. So, it's probably a good thing that I don't really have a serious interest in politics or a political career.

I think the reason for the authoritarian bent came from doing almost a decade of public service as a clerk in a fairly well segrgated suburb. I came to see a good cross-section of people, both co-workers and clients, and I came to the startling realization that not everyone thinks the way that I do. I was about 17 at the time. Things that I had taken for granted as "common sense", it turned out were just things that I lucky enough to have learned along the path of life at the time. It was very surprising to me how much a lot of people didn't know or didn't care to know.

I do not claim to be a great intellect or have any reason to elevate myself above others. I've met plenty of people who are way beyond me in various modes of thought. But, I have found that there are people who are woefully lacking in what I would consier to be basic life skills. It's also pretty clear that this lack is not their own fault, it is inherent to these people as human beings. These faults cross gender, race, ethnic, political and socio-economic boundaries, so I'm not being bigoted against one group of people. It is just some kind of limitation that cannot be overcome with education. They simply don't "get" certain concepts that are essential to being moderately viable in this society. These are the people most at risk of failing to survive in respectable way, should our society let them fall through the cracks.

Whe I was younger I would just say that these people were stupid. But I have a friend who told me that he really didn't like thinking that everyone else is stupid because it made life seem all tht much more hopeless. These days, I try to keep those kinds of thoughts in check and instead just resign myself to the fact that some people are better at life than others and it's not their fault. I also remind myself that there is no hope in teaching any of these people how to improve their standing in life because there is only so much capacity for them to learn. The ony way to help these people is to give them the basics of what they need to live and provide safety net for them. Hence my leftist views. Add to that my natural desire for order, and you can see how I would wind up in a strange fringe of the leftist scale.

As I said before, it's a good thing that poltics largely annoy and bore me. But I still like to get my $.02 in from time to time. Just in the hope that some other people on the fence might move a little more to the left.

Re:Interesting observations (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8562135)

Interesting.

Being i vote rightist, both for soicial and political reasons, i disagree wholeheartedly with (what i perceive as) the leftist agenda. However, i would love if real debate were on the floor of the House, and not the babble that is currently there. In a sense, i wish you would get interested so we'd have an intelligent leftist out there. :) I have a friend who is a leftist, and when we argue about points (rather than parties) he will say that he feels that's how it should be. He knows those values, and knows that it is a value, and not what "should" or "shouldn't" be done. As such, we both agree on so much, though in practical legislation we disagree greatly.

Whe I was younger I would just say that these people were stupid.

I still say that. Partially because it's the only way to answer a kid's question of "why do they do that?" I agree that they have a reason, just that they focus on so little, and therefore either they, or the society that made them who they are, can be classified as stupid.

I don't mean that _too_ seriously though.

But I have a friend who told me that he really didn't like thinking that everyone else is stupid because it made life seem all tht much more hopeless.

I'm laughing that remark. The irony it points out is true. The truth can make us hopeless. Even if it isn't true, it's a good point. Let's focus on where we can be, rather than where others are not.

Anyway, nice read. Thanx.

Off topic: Typos (1)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#8562234)

Damn. I just hit submit for my original posting and didn't bother to preview. Pardon the typos, but I got a new laptop and the keys require much harder pressure than I am used to or like. So... I've been mistyping like a fiend for the past few weeks.

Re:Off topic: Typos (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8563935)

No problem. I am more interested in what you have to say. (Though i will probably enjoy it more when you are back to your non-tpyo self. :-P )

I find your synopsis disturbing (3, Interesting)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8563220)

I have always though that the difference between the left and right wings were summed up in Jefferson versus Hamilton. The Jeffersonians seeking a happy rural society where everything is engineered to have a place and the government protects the individual from harsh business and market forces. The Hamiltonians seek to allow the "invisible hand" to guide the economy and foster private intrest's undertaking things that the Jeffersonians would see as "something only government can do."

The prime example of a Hamiltonian public work is the privately funded New York state water way system. New York city itself being the example of the Hamiltonian city. The Jeffersonians, however, are exemplified by the rural cities of the south. An example would be any one of the southern captial cities.

The result is that northern capital cities are known for efficiency and southern ones for their grace and beauty. While Washington DC has the grace of a northern city and the efficiency of a southern one.

Left-wing causes tend to be the rights of individuals over the rights of corprate entities... such as business, government, or society as a whole. Right-wing causes tend to be the rights of businesses, governments, and society as a whole... over the rights of the individual.

A prime example of this is the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act compromises individual freedoms in order to provide greater saftey to the public at large. The accusation of "terrorist" may rob a single innocent man of his freedom but it protects one-hundred other innocents from a potential terrorist.

The opposing left-wing view would simply be that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man.

Consider the compromises that we see from each party. Consider the very core of Abortion rights, the right of the child over the mother versus the right of the mother over the child. The child cannot speak and is therefore defended by the corporate whole... the mother can speak and is therefore her own individual. The right winger will side with the corporate rights of all people to enjoy life... the left-winger will side with the individual woman's right to determine her own fate.

I've always seen the difference between the left and the right as the balance between the rights of one and the rights of the many. This business about self-betterment just strikes me as odd. I don't think there's anything in particular in either view that says anything toward "self betterment" and I think that attributing such views is dangerous.

The right-winger wants you to better yourself so you can contribute to the wealth of society. The left-winger wants to encourage you to better yourself for your own right to do so. Both view points can encourage the same things. They are not somehow exclusive.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8563912)

Interesting post.

A couple points.

1) I am talking specifically about the social role, not the political one.
2) Abortion is a terrible example. The right wingers see it as a quesiton of life, the left as individual rights. However, switch it to anything else and the opposite happens. For example, if a person wanted to remove his right arm. A rightist would allow for it (it's his body), whereas the leftist would oppose either for the greater good or the person not knowing what he "really" wants.

A more common example is drugs. Leftists are against it, and rightist are at least sometimes for it, if it doesn't bother anyone. (Of course the "religous right" (formerly the "religous left") can make it confusing.)

The right-winger wants you to better yourself so you can contribute to the wealth of society. The left-winger wants to encourage you to better yourself for your own right to do so.

Actually, you have it backwards. Right wingers say do whatever you want. Society will probably benefit, but that is not the main point, nor is it legislated. This is my main point for being a rightist!

The left wingers believe you should contribute to society. This is even in the ultimate left-wing entity known as Socialism. Although, they allow you to do what you want, you a) must contribute to society (or at least not be destructive to it) b) when you benefit you must share it with society.

As such, it is the rightist that is the ultimate individualist.

As for the individual versus corporation, that is also untrue. The rightist does not believe busness should overrule. Rather, in a truly classless society a business or government is no better and probably no worse than any individual. As such, the individual cannot force his views on it. The leftist, however, believes very much in a classed society. Government is on top, people in the middle, business on the bottom. As such, of course individuals should force their will on business. This is very much like the caste system, and can be parallelem to the system mention in The Republic.

Anyway, these are more political than social, and perhaps better discussed in another JE. I'm really wondering about the social views here.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8566629)

2) Abortion is a terrible example. The right wingers see it as a quesiton of life, the left as individual rights. However, switch it to anything else and the opposite happens. For example, if a person wanted to remove his right arm. A rightist would allow for it (it's his body), whereas the leftist would oppose either for the greater good or the person not knowing what he "really" wants.

No, I would say that Abortion is a perfect example. Righties are all for the benefit of society and the right of being left alone... aka "Negative Rights." Where as Lefties are all about "Positive Rights" as in right to health care... right to protection from ones-self.

I think you have it backwards. Righties want to enforce "Negative rights" and Lefties want to enforce "Positive rights."

For a gal to get an abortion I have to provide an abortion clinic. For the fetus to live everyone has to leave it alone and let it be. Abortion clinic = "Positive Right" ... "Let it live" = "Negative Right"

As for the individual versus corporation, that is also untrue. The rightist does not believe busness should overrule. Rather, in a truly classless society a business or government is no better and probably no worse than any individual. As such, the individual cannot force his views on it. The leftist, however, believes very much in a classed society. Government is on top, people in the middle, business on the bottom. As such, of course individuals should force their will on business. This is very much like the caste system, and can be parallelem to the system mention in The Republic.

Okay, did you or did you not take the mantiory Philosophy class in college? Did you sleep through it? That last bit makes no sense what so ever.

Of course there are classes in society, it's whether our society permits crossing those classes or not that is the issue. People who make $100,000 a year are in a wholly different class from those who make $30,000 or $12,000. That's just fact.

I would be amazed to see a politician put forward that the Government was a class... that would likely get him kicked out of office.

The Lefties often support people suing tobacco companies and fast food resturants saying that the companies harmed the individuals and that the individuals should be allowed the right to compensation (Positive Right). The Righties often oppose individuals suing companies for the same reasons citing the customer has to be responsible for their own actions and thus should leave the corporation alone (Negative Right).

It's all about Positve and Negative rights. Right to food, shelter, and health care (Positive Right). Right to be left alone in peace, to speak you mind, to practice your own religion (Negative Rights).

There's nothing about "forcing you will" or some other nonsense.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8567595)

I disagree with everything you have said here. But, to reply, i would just be repeating my last post. Being redundant, i won't bother.

Okay, did you or did you not take the mantiory Philosophy class in college? Did you sleep through it?

Nope. I read these things myself. As such i formed my *own* opinion. :)

People who make $100,000 a year are in a wholly different class from those who make $30,000 or $12,000. That's just fact.

No, it is not fact. It is a perception. Those who perceive it as a class are left-wing, those who don't, are right-wing.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8567796)

No, it is not fact. It is a perception. Those who perceive it as a class are left-wing, those who don't, are right-wing.

Oh, please. Don't even pretend that the rich get a different view of "justice" from the poor. If OJ Simpson were a poor man he would have had a radically different trial. Not to mention the huge difference in health care and education. You have got to be kidding me. There is no comparison. Most people worry about next month's rent.

Nope. I read these things myself. As such i formed my *own* opinion. :)

That's all well and good, then I suggest you learn some basic terminology if you want to discuss any of these things seriously. I'll try and help you along but this business about self-actualization and all that is just too new-agey for me to take seriously.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8567937)

Don't even pretend that the rich get a different view of "justice" from the poor.

That's because of the lawyers they can hire. Unfortunately, the system allows for too many technicalities. Of course, it was the leftists that added them. A pure rightist would probably skip the jury and the verbiage of the law, and go after the idea of the law when it was proposed. But, this is very much intermingled with the religous-right's view that there is an absolute right and wrong, and therefore rules must be created to keep society from doing wrong.

self-actualization and all that is just too new-agey

Self-actualation, as pointed out by Keirsey, is what Idealists try to do. Since they have been doing it from time immemorial, in some form or fashion, and it's been alluded to in many works about the four types of man over the past two millenia, i'd hardly call it "new agey".

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8568045)

i'd hardly call it "new agey".

Okay, "fruity" ... "foo foo" ... "girly" which one do you like better? Remember I wear cowboy boots and drive a truck... I can't think in those kinds of circles.

Okay, fine I don't really wear cowboy boots and drive a truck... it's bad for the environment.

So would you say the far right is best personified Libertarian and the far left is Leninist or Marxist? I'd say politicians added the technicalities... for the benefit of those who could afford lawyers... right or left.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8569336)

So would you say the far right is best personified Libertarian and the far left is Leninist or Marxist?

Not really. The rightist eventually wants everyone to be equal. Thus, pure Communism. The leftist wants everyone to do the right thing, thus Socialism. Though, i find it overwhelmingly odd that the extreme of freedom, Communism, tells people what to do, and the extreme of telling people what to do, Socialism, gives absolute freedom (amongst the legal jobs).

Being Lenin and Marx were neither pure Communists or Socialists, it would not be good to say they are extreme anything.

Libertarianism (what the Tax-Payers party (or Constitution Party) is, not the US Liberitarian Party) is really in the middle somewhere. They believe people are individuals, and governement should be there only to protect from outside forces, but not from inside forces. Both rightists and leftists believe in some way of protection from inside forces.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8572277)

So, what then is the difference between "pure Communism" and "Peaceful Anarchy"?

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8572976)

In Communism people are told what to do, although the people have to delegate these tasks in some fashion. Further, everyone own everything, and there is no money. All in all, there is a great sense of coommunity in living life towards a common goal.

In Peaceful Anarchy people do what they want, with no resrictions. People own whatever they grab first, and gold or something else precious is used for bartering. All in all, there is a great sense of indiviualism, and each person can do what he wants.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8576385)

So where does the term "The Withering away of the State" fit into the Communist Philosophy? When a state has achieved the "Whithering away" to the idealistic point mentioned by Marx how is it different from Peacful Anarchy then. How can people be told what to do by a state that doesn't exist?

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8578749)

So where does the term "The Withering away of the State" fit into the Communist Philosophy?

I don't konw. I have never heard of the term.

Note though, that Marxism was not Communism, though it was related.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 9 years ago | (#8580641)

So who wrote the "Communist Manifesto" and what is in it? How is this different from Communism? What are the stages of human civilization described by Marx? How does the most primitive civilization compare to the most advanced by Marxist philosophy? How is this different from Communist philosophy?

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8580990)

I don't know.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8607645)

Then how can you possibly know what communism is? How can you make statements about what it is?

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8608672)

Because, the ideas are simple, and easily understood. How they then are adapted to fit ther demographics or other realities is irrelevant.

Besides that, i have spoken to people who were born and raised in Russia (well, Latvia) , and questioned them on the difference between Communism and Socialism, and a bit about the rest.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8566633)

The left wingers believe you should contribute to society. This is even in the ultimate left-wing entity known as Socialism. Although, they allow you to do what you want, you a) must contribute to society (or at least not be destructive to it) b) when you benefit you must share it with society.

Socialism is the ultimate manifestation of the "Positive Rights" issue. BTW. It has nothing to do with whether you should "contribute to society" as an individual or not. The unfortunate consequence of providing everyone with health-care, food, shelter, and education is that you have to have taxes... and mighty high ones too.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8567633)

It has nothing to do with whether you should "contribute to society" as an individual or not.

Socialism [dictionary.com] is the belief "of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." Hence, what i said. You merely explained what a far-left Democrat--though not quite Socialist--believes. And, based on its beginning in The Republic, it is very much classed.

Though this is different from Communism, where the government already owns it all, there are no classes, and people are told what to do (by their collective will). Ironically, this is closer to the right-wing ideal. That is, have all of the country owned by a company, where each citizen has one vote (stock).

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8567834)

The point is not that "there are no classes" the point is that an individual can cross those classes freely. To say there are no classes and that anyone who believes in classes is wrong is like saying there are no races... ect.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8567980)

You are correct. However, to add classes based on wealth is to extend these classes. The basis of the social rightist is that as far as society is concerned, the classes do not exist.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8568091)

Okay, now you have to define society. Do you mean society as persons collectively considered or society as the way people relate to one-another. The classes exist as surely as races exist as an unfortunate reality of having or not having money. The way people relate to each other does not have to be governed by the fact of being rich or poor... but in reality IT WILL. So as far as "society" goes "society" can ignore classes but "society" will be force to deal with the classes that compose society.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8569383)

Do you mean society as persons collectively considered or society as the way people relate to one-another.

The former.

but in reality IT WILL

I disagree. It only affects the people who let it affect them. Like a victim syndrome. If someone believes they are a victim, they probably will become one. Even so, accepting this gives it official sanction, making it okey, and thus worsens the problem. It's better to ignore it, so it doesn't take on a new form.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8572313)

Even so, accepting this gives it official sanction, making it okey, and thus worsens the problem. It's better to ignore it, so it doesn't take on a new form.

So it's like discrimination then? If you ignore discrimination it goes away? By ignoring the inequality you make everything alright?

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8573080)

If you ignore discrimination it goes away?

In most cases, yes. Using Keirsey's types, and how Delunas explains the Games model, an Artisan discriminates mostly because of a negative trait designed to protect the Artisan's self-respect. The best way to combat it, is to care less than the Artisan cares. If there is no shock value, the Artisan generally stops gaming.

With Guardians, it may be an understanding that there are classes and roles, and through growing up in a bigotted household, the child may have some notions about superiority and inferiority. The best way to combat that, would be through ignorance. If the issue of race is not mentioned, and society exists with no prominence given to any race, the Guardians will accept the new rules, though it may take some time. However, if they help the "inferior" class, they will probably never lose the idea that there is an inferior race or class. Treating them in a special way would merely ingrain what they have been taught, even if they do not react to it negatively.

By ignoring the inequality you make everything alright?

No. If something is blatantly supporting inequality, the laws should bar it. So, whereas the US is a society based on business, those busnisses may generally not discriminate. However, forcing "equality" only makes matters worse.

Removing inequality is a slow process. But, the slower it comes, the longer it stays.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8576436)

So how is discrimination different from inequality? Doesn't discrimination generate inequality and inequality foster discrimination? How can a law bar discrimination without forcing equality? How can you create equality between classes without helping the discriminated against class achieve equality?

Example: Lincon freed the slaves but was killed before implementing educational programs that allowed them to do any other jobs than the slave labor positions they had previously occupied. Thus, they had freedom in name only without economic freedom from the cycles that kept them slaves. This parallels the Jewish oppression in Catholic Italy in the middle ages where Jews were given freedom only to practice money changing businesses and allowed only to live in Ghettos. The result was self-perpetuating prejudices and economic inequalities. Literary reference: http://drama.pepperdine.edu/shakespeare/spring02/m onica/MonicaBrocco.htm

It may well be that the discriminated against can only lean upon the fairness of law to up hold their "equality" so therefore: How can a law bar inequality without forcing equality? How can a law bar discrimination and ignore it? How can you quickly remove inequality without major discomfort in the removal of discrimination?

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8578857)

So how is discrimination different from inequality?

Discrimination is an action, inequality is a passive view. The action of discrimination is to push people down, the action of inequality (when people decide to take action) is to raise people up.

Jews were given freedom only to practice money changing businesses and allowed only to live in Ghettos.

The focus there was acutally on what they couldn't do. They couldn't live with everyone else, they couldn't have normal jobs. Money lending was allowed, as Catholics were not allowed to charge interest to each other. Although, depending on the city, various jobs were allowed, including impressive ones such as tavern ownership, mercantile, and others.

How can a law bar inequality without forcing equality?

Inequality is not barred. It is ignored. Active discrimination is barred. For example. a "women only" (discrimination against men) policy is not allowed, but actually forcing a quota of men (taking action against inequality) is not done.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 9 years ago | (#8580798)

Inequality is not barred. It is ignored. Active discrimination is barred.

Discrimination is an action, inequality is a passive view.

So to discriminate is to actively push down while inequality is to lift up. How then does one choose who is lifted up and who receives inequality? What mechanism does one decide who gets to be lifted up? What is this mechanism called? How is it different from discrimination? How is it not an action? What is action?

The choice of who is unequal is a choice. That choice is made with assumptions. Those assumptions are prejudice. That prejudice is discrimination. The result of discrimination is inequality.

You are defining terms yourself and not using a common vocabulary. To argue your point there must be an established set of terms. Either learn the ones used in your venue of debate or define them and create your own.

If you can define your own terms so can I. You Chachamist.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8581291)

So to discriminate is to actively push down while inequality is to lift up.

No. Inequality is to see people as different. If one takes action *against* inequality, it is to pull them up.

How then does one choose who is lifted up and who receives inequality?

This is a natural reaction to the different group. Jung would probably place this as the collective unconcious, thus based on demographics.

What mechanism does one decide who gets to be lifted up?

If an action is decided to be taken, those people who decide to take it first define the groups upon which the perceived inequality is based. Then the groups are given positions, so at least one is on top of at least one other. Then, the "bottom" ones (for the topic at hand) are given help.

What is this mechanism called?

That depends on how its done. In the US it's generally known as the "Democratic Process".

How is it different from discrimination?

Discrimination takes action to make those that are actually equal, into that which isn't equal. These actions are aimed at making things equal. Therefore, they are opposites.

How is it not an action?

Inequality is a perception. Before an action can happen, it must usually be translated into a judgement, and then a second decision to take action to change the situation is taken. Thus, being it precedes action, it cannot also be action.

What is action?

Something done. It comes from the word "act", which is to perform. An action, is then the thing that was performed.

The choice of who is unequal is a choice.

Sometimes. In children it is a perception. If those children grow up without thinking about it, it is still a perception. To be a choice, they must be presented with opposing ideas, and think about it.

That choice is made with assumptions.

Depending on what you are defining. If the defintion is that people look different, there is little assumption involved. If it is that people make different salaries, it is also not an assumption. To say that these things matter, however, is an assumption. Or more accurately, a point of view.

Those assumptions are prejudice. That prejudice is discrimination.

No, they are not. Discrimination, in the generally used political term, is an action against that are different. Inequality is taking those that are the same and making them different.

The result of discrimination is inequality.

No, it is not. The result of inequality is generally discrimination. Though discrimination may lead to inequality, it is not always the result.

If everyone with blonde hair were to discriminate against those with red hair, in that they refuse to give them haircuts, the reddists could easily start their own barbershops. As such, while there would be discrimination, there would be no inequality.

You are defining terms yourself and not using a common vocabulary.

I think i am using the common vocabulary. I just am not changing the words to meet my current political view,

But, now that we're complaining :) ..... you are being defensive, and doing what Dr. Delunas calls the Games of Super-Intelligent and Nitpick. Basically, you know you might be incorrect, but to protect whatever little amount of self-respect you think you have left, you are trying to push me down, so you can take the high-road, and get loads of "fake" self-respect. Tsk. Tsk. I would have expected better from you. :-P

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8607672)

If everyone with blonde hair were to discriminate against those with red hair, in that they refuse to give them haircuts, the reddists could easily start their own barbershops. As such, while there would be discrimination, there would be no inequality.

You realize you are advocating "Separate but Equal" here right? This is saying that having Black schools and White schools is okay? Is that really what you meant to argue?

But, now that we're complaining :) ..... you are being defensive, and doing what Dr. Delunas calls the Games of Super-Intelligent and Nitpick. Basically, you know you might be incorrect, but to protect whatever little amount of self-respect you think you have left, you are trying to push me down, so you can take the high-road, and get loads of "fake" self-respect. Tsk. Tsk. I would have expected better from you. :-P

So, seeking clarity of terms is nit-picking and attempting to apply a socratic method is a game? Yes, I can see that you could call the socratic method a game. I am attempting to teach you something and I'm doing it for entertainment purposes. I keep in mind that you also are doing this as a form of entertainment and my have no real intrest in discussion.

What you have done here is to insult me personally. I haven't insulted you. I also don't care as much about this thread as you obviously do. I am asking you questions about the statements you have made. I want you to see the errors in your own arguments, perhaps we will both be bettered by this exchange.

Please don't be disappointed if I don't respond, I'm busy at the moment and can't spare too much time for our little game.

Re:I find your synopsis disturbing (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8608972)

You realize you are advocating "Separate but Equal" here right? This is saying that having Black schools and White schools is okay? Is that really what you meant to argue?

No, it is not what i am advocating. As the sentence prior made clear "Though discrimination may lead to inequality, it is not always the result."

So, seeking clarity of terms is nit-picking and attempting to apply a socratic method is a game?

Not at all. But most of your responses do one of two things. One, tell me that i don't know what i am talking about, "Super Intellegent". And two, asking me for useless distinctions instead of addressing the actual topic, "nitpick".

The former is usually followed by a fancy word. You did it in this sentence. I suggested you were playing a Game, and you respond by taking the "high road", to try to lower me. You then followed it with the fancy word "Socratic". An excellent example.

You also did it in the previous response with "If you can define your own terms so can I. You Chachamist." The sentence was there to say that i was an idiot for "making up" terminology, to which you responded that so could you, since you are so smart. Followed, again, by a fancy, though made-up, word "Chachamist". I'm certain there are other examples, but you could easily find them yourself. Ever since i've read the book, i've found myself doing it. It's fun to see the games i play, and hopefully, i'll even resolve them.

The latter, is generally a deviation from the subject at hand to useless data. The goal is to show that the subject cannot answer all the questions, and as such is unreliable--and probably stupid--and thus nothing he says need be listened to. You did this beautifully with "How then does one choose who is lifted up and who receives inequality? What mechanism does one decide who gets to be lifted up? What is this mechanism called? How is it different from discrimination? How is it not an action? What is action?" Your focus on the word "mechanism" also points to this.

I am attempting to teach you something and I'm doing it for entertainment purposes.

Perhaps therein lies the problem. I want an argument where the result is that we both learn something. You seem to want to teach me, and thus have no interest in the argument. As such, when i do argue, you take it personally. This was by no means my intention, and i apologize if you took it that way. I appreciate your comments, most certainly the original reply, and want to hear your POV.

I keep in mind that you also are doing this as a form of entertainment and my have no real intrest in discussion.

I am doing it for entertainment. But that entertainment comes from the interest in the discussion, unless the discussion deteriorates, as i think it did.

What you have done here is to insult me personally.

I had no intention to, and i am sorry that you took it that way. Please forgive me. I do have a defense though. I specifically put two smileys in my reply to show non-hostility, and even preceded my comment with "But now that we're complaining :)". I meant that specifically to be a soft opener. I guess i'll have to be more careful next time.

I haven't insulted you.

I think you did. At least somewhat. You made hurtful comments such as "You are defining terms yourself and not using a common vocabulary.", and "You Chachamist." In the other thread, i took, " So who wrote the "Communist Manifesto" and what is in it? How is this different from Communism? What are the stages of human civilization described by Marx? How does the most primitive civilization compare to the most advanced by Marxist philosophy? How is this different from Communist philosophy?" as a personal attack. Even reading it now, that's what it sounds like.

I also don't care as much about this thread as you obviously do. I am asking you questions about the statements you have made. I want you to see the errors in your own arguments, perhaps we will both be bettered by this exchange.

OK. I beleve i am correct, but i am willing to here your suggestions. However, perhaps another method may be better. That is, instead of questioning me on what terms means (a "you" statement) tell me what you think/know it means (an "i" statement). Also, instead of the questions, try applying my ideas and see where they fail.

I argue first and foremost without care to reality. Only after the idea is clear is it applied to the real world. I feel that this way, when compromises happen, i understand exactly what is being compromised on. I think you are trying to take the more realistic approach. That is, to realize reality first, and then make some compromises towards how it "should be". That approach is anathema to me, as i feel that the actual ideas are lost and compromises are made where they do not, and probably should not, be made.

Ha, here's one for you... (2, Informative)

FroMan (111520) | more than 10 years ago | (#8563277)

I do not beleive all people are equal.

What?

Okey, sure we are all equal in theory (such as we all are fallen sinners).

However, that is about as far as it goes. Some folks have more talent, skill, drive, and desire than others.

As a conservative I believe in equal oppertunity. Quite simpley, allow everyone a chance at an education to a certain level, say highschool. Then, offer incentives to those to go beyond that, perhaps through college, with loans, grants, and other sorts of scholarships.

Now, once everyone has equal oppertunity through education, let the world sort it out. Some people are better at baseball than others, let the good baseball players become baseball players if they can prove they are among the best. Let the folks that want to be lawyers become laywers if they can prove they are among the best. Let anyone do whatever their heart desires, as long as they can earn a living in the marketplace.

The marketplace will assign a value to each person, they can either take it or leave it. For instance, when I started college the computer boom as just in its infancy. By the time I finished, the bust was pretty much starting. So, the marketplace decided I am not to make six figures starting, I had a choice of taking an offer or leaving it. I took it. Every other kid in college at that time had the same choice I did.

Equal oppertunity is what makes a conservative a conservative. Equal outcome is what makes many liberals liberal.

It certainly would be nice if everyone could have all that they ever desired, but with limited resources equal oppertunity is the best we can do.

Re:Ha, here's one for you... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8563927)

Equal oppertunity is what makes a conservative a conservative. Equal outcome is what makes many liberals liberal.

Interesting vantage point. Though, to truly be equal some intervention is needed, as such the conservatives need to admit to reality. Then again, so do the leftists. :)

Nice post.

This view (1)

Tikiman (468059) | more than 10 years ago | (#8564173)

The right wing believes the focus is on being better. That is, everyone starts off worse and the purpose of life is to become better, and then reap the very rewards that they have earned. The inferior group simply hasn't made it (yet), but avenues are open and welcome.

The left-wing believes the focus is on being worse. That is, everyone starts off (relatively) better and the purpose in life is to make sure we don't get worse. Though, they admit that by doing nothing people get worse automatically, and therefore require work to stay better. Thus, while rewards do go to the better naturally, they are not truly theirs, as they have not "earned" it. They just didn't "lose" them.

Perhaps this attitude shapes the abortion debate as well - the left pro-choice side is more concerned with the life of the mother, recognizing that pregnancy can be a difficult process. Abortion enables people's lives to not be worse. Meanwhile, the right pro-life side is concerned with the life of the fetus, which represents human life at the time of its peak potential, and sacrificing the potential life of one being for the convenience of another is unfair and absurd. At the end of the day, this makes debate rather useless, since both sides simply have different priorities.

Re:This view (2, Interesting)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8565323)

At the end of the day, this makes debate rather useless, since both sides simply have different priorities.

Interesting. Here's some more brain fodder.

The pro-life group does not call themselves anti-abortion. That isn't the focus, The question is, "Is this a life or not?"

The pro-death group does not call themselves pro-abortion. That isn't the focus. The focus is that the mother can choose. The question is "Does the female have authority over her own body?"

In each question, both sides agree to the answer. The argument is over which question to ask. And therefore, discussing it requires to know why each asks their question.

the left pro-choice side is more concerned with the life of the mother,

Well, at least, i wouldn't use those words to explain it. Probably because i equate abortion with murder in its fullest sense. So, i'll try according to my weltanschauung. The pro-choice side is more concerned that people are being told what to do, rather than relying on them as indivduals, and thus capable of their own choices. To compensate for this, they make their own choices, even whn it does affect others.

This opens the avenue for thought on the rightists. They so much want indivdual choice, that they rely on indivduals to make their choices even when they cannot. (Some might consider this my problem regard children's rights [slashdot.org] .)

As the Economist once said.. (2, Informative)

salimma (115327) | more than 10 years ago | (#8566274)

.. old-fashioned socialists want equality, while 'Third Way' centrists want equality of opportunity...

Not that I endorse the specific policies of the Rt. Hon. Anthony Blair and his government, and especially not the way his PR department behaves.

Re:As the Economist once said.. (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8567436)

old-fashioned socialists want equality, while 'Third Way' centrists want equality of opportunity...

Interesting quote. Thanx.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>